Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 8/29/2017. (vdru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
KELLY BURNETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 2:16-01637-MGL-MGB
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR BENEFITS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The parties are
represented by excellent counsel. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court
Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for SSI be affirmed. The Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 3, 2017, ECF No. 16, but Plaintiff failed
to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for SSI is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 29th day of August 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2