Crosby v. Commissioner Social Security Administration et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/2/2012. (gnan ) Modified on 7/3/2012 to edit text. (gnan ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Louis Crosby,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:11-874-TMC
OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his claim for Social
Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the
Social Security Act (the "Act"). This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (“Report"), filed on June 12, 2012, recommending that the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") be affirmed. (Dkt. # 27).
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
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 objections are 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
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).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. (Dkt. # 27-1). Objections were due
by June 29, 2012. However, Plaintiff did not file objections until July 2, 2012. (Dkt. # 30). Plaintiff
did not file objections to the Report within the required time for doing so nor did he seek leave of
the court to file untimely objections. Accordingly, the court reviews the Report “only [to] satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, advisory committee's note).1 After a thorough and careful review of the record,
the court finds no clear error and adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it
herein by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina
July 2, 2012

1

The court also notes that Plaintiff was untimely in filing his brief in this action. It was
due September 22, 2011, (Dkt. # 11), and Plaintiff did not file it until October 6, 2011. (Dkt. #
13).

2