Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 16 Report and Recommendation. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 12/23/2013. (jbry, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darryl Keith Rice,

) Civil Action No.: 2:12-3420-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,1
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________
Plaintiff Darryl Keith Rice (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claims for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendrikcs for pretrial handling. On December 2, 2013, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined that the
Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 16.) No objections were filed, and
the time to do so has expired. For the reasons stated below, the court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
STANDARD
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.

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 Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this lawsuit.

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 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).
DISCUSSION
The well-reasoned Report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. No
objections have been filed to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Absent prompt objection by a
dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual
and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court
level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).
CONCLUSION
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. Thus, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein
by reference. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
December 23, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina