Turman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/7/2017.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Tena R. Turman,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration, 1
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 6:16-01331-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 25), filed on July 18, 2017, recommending that the
Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act be affirmed.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. Diamond v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005). However, neither party has filed any objections to the Report within the allotted time.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for Carolyn
Colvin as the named defendant because she became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
on January 23, 2017.
1

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to
appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), and AFFIRMS the
Commissioner’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 7, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2