PETTIGREW v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ORDER adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, granting 17 Motion to Change Venue. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/16/2017.(abuc) [Transferred from scd on 2/16/2017.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael Preston Pettigrew,
) Civil Action No.: 6:16-2369-BHH
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commission of
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02 for the District of South
Carolina. Plaintiff Michael Preston Pettigrew (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial
review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits.
Defendant, Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security filed a
motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 17) as Plaintiff currently resides in Hartwell, Georgia.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
On January 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 17)
be granted, and this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia. Neither party filed objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge.
The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein by reference. The Defendant’s motion to transfer venue (ECF No.
17) is hereby GRANTED. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 16, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?