Sturm v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 40 Report and Recommendation as set out. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/30/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Angela Ethridge Sturm,

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

Civil Action No.: 6:13-1097-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

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 Angela
Ethridge Sturm (“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and
XVI of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.)
On July 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
finding that the Commissioner’s decision is based on substantial evidence and free of legal
error. (ECF No. 40.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (ECF No. 40 at 33.) Neither party filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so expired on July 24, 2014.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

1

The

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.

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 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 to him with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates
it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July ____, 2014
30
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2

3