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 )

Download PDF
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

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?