Albertson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/12/2011. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
MELISSA CAROL ALBERTSON,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER )
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Civil Action No.: 1:10-1779-TLW-SVH
Plaintiff has brought this action to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the
defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, denying her claims for disability benefits. This
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by
United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had previously been
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). In
the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
(Doc. # 17). The plaintiff filed objections on August 12, 2011. (Doc. # 19). The defendant filed a
Reply on August 26, 2011. (Doc. # 22). This Court has carefully reviewed the Report in light of
the objections filed by the plaintiff. This Court has reviewed the cited cases and the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis. 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)
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 17). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
September 12, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
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?