James v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 40

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 38 Report and Recommendation as set out. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/18/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Macila V. James,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:13-1078-RMG

ORDER

----------------------------)

Plaintiff brought this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain relief from
the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her
disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on
October 27,2014, recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 38).
Plaintiff was provided written notice of her right to file objections to the R & R, the deadline for
filing objections and the consequences for failing to file objections. (Dkt. No. 38 at 20). Plaintiff
filed no objections to the R & R.
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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection has been made, and may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 28

-1­

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme of the Social Security Act is
a limited one. Section 405(g) of the Act provides that "[t]he findings of the Commissioner of
Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than a
scintilla, but less than preponderance." Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541,543 (4th Cir. 1964).
This standard precludes de novo review of factual circumstances that substitutes the Court's
findings for those ofthe Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971).
Although the federal court's review role is limited, "it does not follow, however, that the
findings of the administrative agency are mechanically accepted. The statutorily granted right of
review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative action."

Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). "[T]he courts must not abdicate their
responsibility to give careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound
foundation for the [Commissioner's] findings." Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.
The Court has reviewed the R & R, the administrative record and the applicable case law.
The Court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge ably and thoroughly analyzed the factual and
legal issues in this matter and appropriately recommended that the decision of the Commissioner
should be affirmed. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R & R ofthe Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.
38) as the order of this Court and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.

-2­

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge

November 1:3,2014
Charleston, South Carolina

-3­