Richards v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report [Dkt. No. 15], and the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/11/2013. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURGDIVISION
Lisa Richards,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:12-cv-00076-JMC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge=s Report and
Recommendation (AReport@), [Dkt. No. 15], filed on January 22, 2013, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Athe Commissioner@) denying Plaintiff=s claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (ADIB@) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) be affirmed.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 D.S.C., the matter was referred
for pretrial handling to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West in which she
recommended affirming the decision of the Commissioner because the decision was supported by
substantial evidence. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court
incorporates herein without a recitation.
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

1

recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections [Dkt. No. 15-2]. Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the Report. 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, Ain 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).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant
case. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report [Dkt. No. 15] and incorporates it
herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner=s final decision is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 11, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2