Floyd v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 39 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by the Honorable Mary G. Lewis on 04/30/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Samuel D. Floyd,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:12-987-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

In this action, Plaintiff Samuel D. Floyd (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, seeks judicial
review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”). Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). The
matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of
Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. filed on March 22, 2013. (ECF No. 39). In the Report, Magistrate
Judge McCrorey set forth the relevant standards of law and facts related to this case. For the reasons
set forth below, the court adopts the Report and affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
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.
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).
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).
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
Spartanburg, South Carolina
April 30, 2013

-2-