Caso v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Hendricks for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/31/2012. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Cheryl Ann Caso,

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

C/A No. 2:11-2751-CMC-BHH

OPINION & ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Social
Security Income (“SSI”). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is currently
before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge
Bruce H. Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules
73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed on October 10, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be affirmed. Dkt. No. 25. The parties were advised of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No objections were
filed and the deadline for filing objections has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter

to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report
by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 31, 2012

2