Kennedy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 21 Report and Recommendation, the Commissioner's decision is Affirmed. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/1/18. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
George Alexander Kennedy, III,

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

Civil Action No.: 6:16-cv-3407-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff, George Alexander Kennedy, III (“Plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), ECF No. 1, denying his claims for
supplemental security income benefits, ECF No. 10-2. This matter is before the Court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on November 1, 2017 by United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). ECF
No. 21. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision.
Id. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report on November 15, 2017. ECF No. 23. The Commissioner
filed a reply to the objections on November 28, 2017. ECF No. 24. The matter is now ripe for
disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. In conducting this review, 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. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
objections thereto, and all other relevant filings and memoranda. The court has also reviewed the
medical records from the treating and evaluating physicians in this case. After careful
consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are repetitive and that the Administrative
Law Judge’s decision to deny benefits is supported by substantial evidence. It is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report, ECF No. 21, is ACCEPTED, and Plaintiff’s
objections, ECF No. 23, are OVERRULED. 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 1, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina