James T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

James T., ) Case No.: 5:25-cv-1316-JD-KDW ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) This Social Security matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff James T.1 (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to Section 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”),2 denying Claimant’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), he is automatically substituted for Defendant Martin O’Malley, who was the Commissioner of Social Security when this action was filed.

A. Background Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB on November 15, 2020,3 alleging disability beginning November 18, 2017. (R. 199-200.) Plaintiff claims the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, osteoarthritis of the right knee, bilateral ACL tears with repair, depressive disorder, methamphetamine dependence, and anxiety (20 CFR 404.1520(c)). (R. 24.) Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. 69, 90.) At Plaintiff’s request, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on November 15, 2023 (R. 118-19), at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (R. 45-68.) On January 26, 2024, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not under a disability. (R. 19-37.) The Appeals Council denied review on January 13, 2025, (R. 1-5), making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff filed this action on March 4, 2025. (DE 1.)

B. Report and Recommendation On November 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (DE 14 at 26.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that the Commissioner performed an adequate review of the whole record in making his decision and the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Id.) Neither party filed an objection to the Report.

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 14) and incorporates it here by reference.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cheap cscs Josabph Dawson, HI Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge January 15, 2026