Altman v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts the Report of Magistrate Judge Hendricks which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision denying benefits in this case is affirmed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 01/04/2013. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Leroy B. Altman,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

C/A No. 2:11-2380-TMC

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on December 7, 2012, recommending that the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be affirmed, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). (Dkt. # 15).
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).

1

No objections have been filed by the Plaintiff or Commissioner, and the time for
filing objections has expired. Thus, the matter is ripe for consideration by this court.
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 adopts the Report of
the Magistrate Judge which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s
final decision denying benefits in this case is AFFIRMED pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 4, 2013

2