Prince v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/18/2011. (aswi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Sandra D. Prince

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 0:10-2256-CMC-PJG

OPINION & ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).1 Plaintiff
appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The matter is currently before the court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed on September 27, 2011, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be affirmed. Dkt. No. 14. No objections were filed to the Report and the time for filing objections
has expired.
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.
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

1

Plaintiff originally applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), but she withdrew
her application for DIB prior to the hearing before the administrative law judge.

to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report
by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed as it
is supported by substantial evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 18, 2011

2