Pace v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/16/2010. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION ) ) Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-01359-JMC ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) Commissioner of the Social Security ) Administration ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Entry #22], filed on July 30, 2010, addressing Plaintiff's claim for social security disability (disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33. The Commissioner of the Social Security Tammi Lewis Pace,

Administration ("Commissioner") affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision that Plaintiff is not disabled. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation concludes that the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 1

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Neither party submitted objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Entry # 22] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (providing that "[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.").

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina September 16, 2010

3