Pratt v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 48

ORDER RULING ON 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (ECF No. 44). Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/17/2016. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Edith W. Pratt,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:15-2054-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, Edith W. Pratt, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social
Security Act (“SSA”). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that
this court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny DIB. (ECF No. 44). The parties were
advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 44-1). However, neither party
filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).
Having conducted the required review, the court finds no clear error and adopts the
Report. (ECF No. 44). Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
October 17, 2016