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

Tara R., ) Case No. 6:25-cv-04881-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the Court on an action brought by Plaintiff pursuant to

(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) affirming her cessation of disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act.1 In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. On July 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this action be dismissed as duplicative of another action Plaintiff has filed (“Plaintiff’s Other Action”). [Doc. 18.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the

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 plaintiffs only by their first names and last initials. serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff filed objections to the Report2, and the Commissioner filed a reply. [Docs. 20; 25.] 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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Plaintiff has not challenged the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the present action be dismissed as duplicative. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution for the pro se Plaintiff, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. Upon such review, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2 It appears from the substance of the filing that Plaintiff was actually attempting to file objections to a Report of the Magistrate Judge in Plaintiff’s Other Action, but she used the case number associated with the present case. [Docs. 20; 21; 28.] Regardless of her intention, her objections do not challenge the recommendation that the present case be dismissed as duplicative. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge

November 12, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina