Droze v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court adopts the Report and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 02/14/2017. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Lee A. Droze, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:15-3140-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, Lee A. Droze, Jr., brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)1
denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act
(“SSA”). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02,
D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that this court
affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny DIB. (ECF No. 14). Neither party has filed
objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the

1

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
January 27, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn
W. Colvin as the defendant in this action.

1

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).
Having conducted the required review, the court finds no clear error. Therefore, the court
adopts the Report and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final
decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
February 14, 2017

2