Manley v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Hendricks's Report. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 10/18/2013. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

) Civil Action No.: 2:12-2562-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Carolyn W. Calvin, Acting
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security,1
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )

Patricia Anne Manley,

The matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff
Patricia Anne Manley (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and
XVI fo the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed her complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
asserting inter alia that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. (ECF No. 1). In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the
decision of the Commissioner. No objections have been filed to the Report and the time
for doing so has passed.

1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social security on February 14,
2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should
be substituted for Commissioner Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this action.

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, 96 S.Ct. 549, 42
L.Ed.2d 483 (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 him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The court has carefully reviewed the record, the applicable case law, and the
findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the
court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
October 18, 2013

-2-