Martini-Roth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 09/27/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Allyson E. Martini-Roth,

Case No. 1:14-cv-04683-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
DEFENDANT

This social security matter now comes before the Court for review of the lengthy and
detailed Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case
was assigned. In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s
decision denying Plaintiff’s claims for Supplemental Security Income. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff filed
objections to the R&R, ECF No. 24, and the Commissioner filed a response to the objections, ECF
No. 25. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the magistrate judge’s recommendation, 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. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
1

omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the
R&R, the objections, and the record relevant to these filings. It is hereby ORDERED that the
R&R, ECF No. 22, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 24, are OVERRULED, and
the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
September 27, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2