Sheppard v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
53
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts and incorporates the 48 Report and Recommendation by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 9/24/2018. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Anthony Wayne Sheppard,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Commissioner of Social Security Administration, )
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
C/A No. 4:17-1877-CMC
OPINION & ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The
matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed on August 30, 2018, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be affirmed. ECF No. 48. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do
so. No objections have been filed and the time for doing so 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 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.1 For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the
Commissioner is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
September 24, 2018
1
The court notes the Report includes a typographical error on page 27, when it refers to Plaintiff
as “she.” Other than this one instance, the Report correctly refers to Plaintiff as “he” throughout.
Therefore, it is clear this is merely a typographical error.
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?