Highland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 15 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 01/08/2015. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
MICHELLE R. HIGHLAND,

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

Case No. 1:13-cv-02923-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Michelle R. Highland 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”) final decision denying her claims for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. 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 was 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 this Court
affirm Defendant’s decision. (Doc. #15). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on September
29, 2014 (Doc. #17), and Defendant filed a reply thereto on October 17, 2014 (Doc. #18). The
matter is now ripe for disposition.
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 in accordance with this standard. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #15) and that Plaintiff’s objections
are OVERRULED (Doc. #17).

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
January 8, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina