Manick v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 34

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 31 Report and Recommendation, granting 22 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Commissioner Social Security Administration. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/23/15. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marcus Antwan Manick,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No.: 6:14-2656-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee confined at a local detention center.
In this action, the plaintiff Marcus Antwan Manick (“the plaintiff”) challenges the termination
of his Title XVI Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. The plaintiff filed his
complaint essentially seeking back pay of his SSI benefits. (ECF No. 1.)
The matter is currently before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, D.S.C. and filed on
May 5, 2015. (ECF No. 31.) In the Report, Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends that
this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The
Magistrate Judge advised the plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed
to do so. (ECF No. 31 at 4.) The plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so
expired on May 22, 2015.
STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 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
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Report to
which specific 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) ( “[D]e novo review [is] unnecessary
in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation.”).
Furthermore, 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). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also “receive further evidence or recommit
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendations for clear error and finds the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 31) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED
that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, and this case is dismissed.
-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 23, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

-3-