Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 14 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by the Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 02/03/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Roger Miller,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.:1:13-cv-01122-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ ECF No. 14], filed on January 14, 2014, recommending that this
action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70
(4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards
which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) 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 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).
Plaintiff was advised of his rights to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 14 at 3].
1

However, Plaintiff filed no 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). Rather, “in 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).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the magistrate judge’s
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court ACCEPTS
the magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 14] and incorporates it herein by
reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the above listed action is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 3, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina
2