From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freddie F v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jan 3, 2024
Civil Action 2:22-4013-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:22-4013-BHH

01-03-2024

Freddie F.,[1] Plaintiff, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

BRUCE H. HENDRICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, which denied Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits. The record includes the report and recommendation (“Report”) of a United States Magistrate Judge, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). In the Report, which was filed on December 4, 2023, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings as set forth in the Report. No party has filed objections to the Report.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 a 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).

Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 20). Therefore, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the case is remanded for a new hearing as set forth in the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Freddie F v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jan 3, 2024
Civil Action 2:22-4013-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2024)
Case details for

Freddie F v. Kijakazi

Case Details

Full title:Freddie F.,[1] Plaintiff, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jan 3, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 2:22-4013-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2024)

Citing Cases

Recarlos C. v. O'Malley

Cf. Freddie F. v. Kijakazi, No. 22CV04013BHHMGB, 2023 WL 9065039, at *9 (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2023) (recommending…