Richwalski v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 27 Report and Recommendation Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/9/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Michael John Richwalski,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,1
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:13-132-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Michael John Richwalski
(“Plaintiff”) brought an action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
under Title II of the Social Security Act. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
McDonald recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision. No objections have been filed to
the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the

1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be substituted
for Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this lawsuit.

Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident 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 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.’ ”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report
by reference. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
June 9, 2014

-2-