Hamilton v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 40 ]. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/29/2017. (prou, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Wilhelmina Cromwell Hamilton,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 5:16-cv-03471-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R [ECF No. 40]. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). R & R at 2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270–71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

1

Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R were due by August 25, 2017. ECF Nos. 40 & 41.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 40]. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
August 29, 2017

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2