Grim v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is ordered that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 02/16/2017. (egra, )

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:15-3698-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, Leland Howard Grim, 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
the court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny DIB. (ECF No. 16). On February 8, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a notice of his intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 17).
Further, the Commissioner has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has
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, 270Nancy 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

71 (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
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 (ECF No. 16), and the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
February 16, 2017