Woodruff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Duran W., ) Case No.: 6:25-cv-11332-JD-KFM ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ) This social security matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald (“Report”) under Local Civil Rule 83.VII.03 of the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff Duran W.’s1 (“Plaintiff”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 7, 14) and providing Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee of $405.00.

A. Background Plaintiff filed this action on August 22, 2025, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (DE 1). With his Complaint, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (DE The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, because of significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials.

7). Following an order from the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff submitted a completed AO 239 financial affidavit (DE 14).

B. Report and Recommendation On September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeded his expenses and that payment of the $405.00 filing fee would not render him destitute. (DE 16.) The Report recommended that Plaintiff be given twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee.

On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he does not intend to object to the Report but requests twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee if the Report is adopted. (DE 18.)

C. Legal Standard In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

D. Conclusion After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court finds that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Thus, the Court adopts the Report (DE 16) and incorporates it here by reference.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 7, DE 14) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the full filing fee of $405.00 within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this Order. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Joseph Dawson, III October 1, 2025 Joseph Dawson, III Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge