Pamela H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Pamela H.,1 C/A No. 2:24-cv-4536-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

Pamela H. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) regarding her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. On January 12, 2026, Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand this matter for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). [ECF No. 26.] Objections to the Report were due on January 26, 2026. No objections have been filed.

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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Without objections, the court need not provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases that federal courts refer to claimants only by their first name and last initials in court opinions. to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 26, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, the court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sherr xk.

January 27, 2026 Sherri A. Lydon don Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge