Paige v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that the Report is ACCEPTED. [ECF No. 20]. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/25/2016. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Cornell Paige

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-0115-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff Cornell Paige (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”), denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits. (ECF No. 1). This matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on April
20, 2016 by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), DSC. (ECF No. 20). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends
affirming the Commissioner’s decision. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice that he did not
have objections to the Report. (ECF No. 22). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to
the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is

1

no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it
accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed no
objections. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report is ACCEPTED. (ECF No. 20). For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten_____________
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Chief United States District Judge
July 25, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2