Clark v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's 26 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/17/2017. (prou, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Daniel Ray Clark,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-00239-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Ray Clark seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. The matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 26. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. R & R at 20.
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, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the

1

Objections were due by January 12, 2017. See ECF No. 26.

absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The
Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 26]. Accordingly, the
Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
January 17, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2