Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 18 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 05/08/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
William L. Oliver,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:13-653-TMC
ORDER

The plaintiff, William L. Oliver, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income benefits (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (“SSA”). (ECF
No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the court affirm the Commissioner’s
decision to deny DIB and SSI. (ECF No. 18). Although advised of their right to do so, neither
party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
February 14, 2012. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.25(d), Colvin should be substituted for Michael J.
Astrue.

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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report and
incorporates it herein.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above and in the Report, the

Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
May 8, 2014