Kennedy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
30
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 27 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 05/17/2016. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Danny R. Kennedy,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil Action No. 0:14-04628-JMC
v.
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of the
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Danny Kennedy (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
defendant, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“the Acting Commissioner”), which
denied his claims for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (ECF No. 1). On December 5,
2014, Plaintiff filed the complaint seeking an order from this court reversing the Acting
Commissioner’s finding that Plaintiff does not meet the requirements to receive SSI based on his
intellectual impairments. (ECF No. 1).
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paige Gossett for a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.VII.02 for the District of South
Carolina. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On March 28, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that the decision of the Acting Commissioner be affirmed
because Plaintiff did not demonstrate deficits in adaptive functioning. (ECF No. 27). The Report
sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a
recitation.
1
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. (ECF No. 27 at 10). The parties
were required to file objections by April 14, 2016. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections
to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court
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 and careful review of the record, the court finds the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant
matter. The court ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 27), and incorporates it
herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Acting Commissioner’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
2
May 17, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
3
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?