Moseley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting and incorporating 18 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/14/19. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
Lisa Jane Moseley,

Civil Action No.: 6:18-1389-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lisa Jane Moseley’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. The record includes the report and recommendation
(“Report”) of a United States Magistrate Judge, which was made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. In the Report, which was
filed on April 22, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s final decision denying benefits. Attached to the Report was a notice
advising Plaintiff of her right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of
being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 18).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 14, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina

2