Opinion
Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-03488-TMC
01-23-2018
Yvonne Drakeford, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff, Yvonne Drakeford, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplementary Security Income ("SSI") pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 12). The Report recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 12 at 23). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") should reconsider the Plaintiff's fibromyalgia in accordance with SSR 12-2p. (ECF No. 12 at 23). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report. On January 22, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 14). However, Defendant does not concede that her administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 14).
This finding alone is sufficient basis to remand. However, the Magistrate Judge instructed that the ALJ is also to take into consideration (1) the Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to adequately explain his consideration of Plaintiff's testimony, (2) the Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to explain the weight assigned to the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, and (3) a reevaluation of Plaintiff's credibility considering Plaintiff's subjective complaints as it results to Plaintiff's fibromyalgia. (ECF No. 12 at 23). --------
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina
January 23, 2018