Belcher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 02/04/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Nathan Scott Belcher,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)

vs.

Civil Action No. 0: 12-3536-RMG

)

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)

ORDER

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of
the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accord with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R & R") on January 17,2014, recommending that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 17). The Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R.

Legal Standard
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 and Recommendation to which specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

-1­

The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social
Security Act is a limited one. The Act provides that the "findings of the Commissioner of Social
Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). "Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than a scintilla, but
less than preponderance." Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964). This
standard precludes de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the Court's
findings of fact for those of the Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971).
Although the federal court's review role is a limited one, "it does not follow, however,
that the findings of the administrative agency are to be mechanically accepted. The statutorily
granted right of review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the
administrative action." Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). Further, the
Commissioner's findings of fact are not binding if they were based upon the application of an
improper legal standard. Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514,519 (4th Cir. 1987).
Discussion
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's R & R, the Plaintiffs objections, the
administrative record, and the applicable legal standards. The Court finds that the R & R ably
analyzes the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concludes that the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
Therefore, Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court
and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
-2­

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

--.:L,

2014
February
Charleston, South Carolina

-3­