Garner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. It is the judgment of the Court that the Commissioners final decision denying Plaintiffs claims is affirmed. Signed by Honorable A Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr on 7/17/2018. (vdru, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Autumn Garner,

Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-1207-AMQ

)
)
Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
)
_______________________________
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Autumn Garner’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income (“SSI”)
under Title XVI of the Social Security Act due to arthritis, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome,
irritable bowel syndrome, and spinal stenosis. (ECF No. 19 at 1.) The Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) issued a Decision denying SSI on January 26, 2016, and it is now the Commissioner’s
final decision for purposes of judicial review. (ECF No. 19 at 2.)
The record includes the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). In the Report, which was filed on June
22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court affirm the decision of the
Commissioner. (ECF No. 19.) The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly weighed the
opinions of the Plaintiff’s treating physicians and assessed the weight of those opinions in

1

accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.927, and that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence. (ECF No. 19 at 17.) Neither party filed objections and the time for doing so has since
expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are 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 the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable
law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none
after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the Court hereby adopts and
incorporates the Report herein (ECF No. 19). Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claims is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 17, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina

2