Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting the 19 Report and Recommendation and affirming the Defendant's final decision denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 12/22/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
JOHN E. HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:15-04941-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S FINAL DECISION DENYING BENEFITS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). The parties are represented
by excellent counsel. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court that Defendant’s final
decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for DIB be affirmed. The Report was made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 12, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply on
December 22, 2016, stating he would decline filing objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.’” 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth
above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the
Court that Defendant’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for DIB is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2