Vereen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 17 Report and Recommendation; adopting the Report and Recommendation and affirming the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/28/2015. (cwil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
VERONICA VEREEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 0:14-cv-00921-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff, Veronica Vereen (“Plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) final decision denying her claims for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (Doc. #1). This matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on March 10, 2015
by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). (Doc. #17). In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court affirm Defendant’s decision. (Doc.
#17). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report on March 26, 2015 (Doc. #18), to which
Defendant replied on April 9, 2015 (Doc. #19). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636.

In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, Plaintiff’s objections, and Defendant’s
reply thereto, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the
applicable law. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED
(Doc. #17) and that Plaintiff’s objections thereto are OVERRULED (Doc. #18). For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 28, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina