Tench v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 24 Report and Recommendation as set out. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/8/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Lisa M. Tench,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 6:13-cv-595-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff, represented by counsel, brought this action pursuant to Sections 205(g) and
1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of a final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security. 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 Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Magistrate
Judge McDonald recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. 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 to which specific objection is made, and the
court 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).

1

The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff filed “Objections” (ECF No. 25) to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The “objections” state in their entirety: “Plaintiff
submits that her prior filings can be read to properly respond to the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation.”
Plaintiff’s objections fail to direct the court’s attention to a specific error in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s
filings do not satisfy the specificity requirement of Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.1 The Court has thoroughly reviewed this matter and finds no clear error.
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court overrules all objections, adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation,
and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

1

Rule 72(b) states:

Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file
specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. . . The district judge must
determine de novo any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (emphasis added).

2

ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 8, 2014

3