Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/2/2016.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Deborah D. Smith,
Case No. 6:15-cv-1489-TLW
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Plaintiff Deborah D. Smith brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for
disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (R&R) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald to
whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. ECF No. 20. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Plaintiff filed objections to the
R&R and the Commissioner replied. ECF Nos. 22, 23. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
After a careful review of the R&R, the objections filed by Plaintiff, and the record related
to the R&R and the objections, this Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge is supported by substantial evidence. In light of the
standard set forth in Wallace, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the R&R is accepted. For
the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 1, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?