Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/24/2017.(abuc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Elzie Grover Williams, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-3663-TLW ORDER Plaintiff Elzie Grover Williams, III (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on December 20, 2016 by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 17. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits. Objections were due on January 3, 2017, but Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. The matter is now ripe for disposition. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district 1 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings, and the applicable law and notes that Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report, ECF No. 17, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten_____________ TERRY L. WOOTEN Chief United States District Judge February 23, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina 2

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?