Nole v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER: The court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the decision of the Commissioner be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this a ction is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the reasons set forth in the Report and incorporated. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/17/2021. (tsim, )
Date Filed 11/17/21
Entry Number 46
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jennifer Semon Nole,
Kilolo Kijakazi , Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Civil Action No. 9:20-cv-2442-TMC
Plaintiff Jennifer Semon Nole brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II and Supplemental Security
Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“SSA”). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., this matter was referred to a
magistrate judge for pretrial handling. The magistrate judge issued a thorough and detailed Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the court reverse and remand the decision of
the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 43 at 21). The Commissioner
subsequently filed notice that she did not intend to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 45).
The purpose of magistrate review is to conserve judicial resources. United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, the recommendations set forth in the
Report have no presumptive weight, and this court remains responsible for making a final
determination in this matter. Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews
On July 9, 2021, Kilolo Kijakazi was named the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 25(d), she is automatically substituted as the defendant in this action. See also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (providing that
action survives regardless of any change in the person acting as the Commissioner of Social Security).
Date Filed 11/17/21
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)).
Entry Number 46
Page 2 of 2
The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made, and the court
may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court need only review for
clear error “those portions which are not objected to—including those portions to which only
‘general and conclusory’ objections have been made.” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas,
LLC, 288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017).
In light of the Commissioner’s express notice that she does not object to the Report, the
court’s review is only for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the record and the thorough
Report of the magistrate judge, the court finds no clear error in the Report and incorporates it
herein. (ECF No. 43). The court, therefore, ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge
that the decision of the Commissioner be remanded for further administrative proceedings.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this action is REMANDED to
the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), for the reasons set forth in the Report and incorporated herein. The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter a final judgment by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
November 17, 2021
Anderson, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?