Seabrook v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER adopting 26 Report and Recommendation, denying 22 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/2/2015.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Alfred Seabrook,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:14-2475-TMC-KFM
ORDER

Plaintiff, Alfred Seabrook, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for
pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending that the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) be denied,
and the case be allowed to proceed on the merits. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the
Report. On August 28, 2015, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 27).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report and
incorporates it herein by reference. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is
DENIED, and the case shall proceed on the merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
September 2, 2015