Pierpaoli v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
40
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and dismisses the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/15/2012. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
William D. Pierpaoli,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Social Security Administration;
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
C/A No. 4:12-cv-848-CMC-TER
OPINION and ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel (“pro se”), appeals the decision
of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and Social Security Income (“SSI”). The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial review of
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without service. The Report found
that the court has no jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies.
Specifically, Plaintiff did not appeal the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council.
The parties were advised of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No objections were filed and the
deadline for filing objections has passed.
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
1
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. 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).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report
by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the court dismisses the complaint without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 15, 2012
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?