King v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Beverly K.,1 ) Civil Action No.: 4:20-cv-03780-RBH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Kilolo Kijakazi,2 Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits.3 See ECF No. 21. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials 2 Kilolo Kijakazi became the acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 25(d), she is substituted for former Commissioner Andrew Saul as the defendant in this action. 3 This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. Neither party has filed objections to the R & R,4 and Plaintiff filed a notice stating she will not be filing objections. See ECF No. 22. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note)). Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 21]. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is hereby AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell October 7, 2021 R. Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge 4 Objections were due by October 6, 2021. See ECF No. 21. 2