Grindstaff v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Report and Recommendations, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 2/12/2010. (aste)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION ROBERT GRINDSTAFF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER ) OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 08-3367-TLW-BHH

ORDER
Plaintiff has brought this action to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability benefits. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks, 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.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. (Doc. # 16). The Report was filed on November 19, 2009. The plaintiff filed an objection on December 7, 2009. (Doc. # 18). The defendant filed a response to the plaintiff's objections on December 17, 2009. (Doc. # 21). 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). In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 16). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge February 12, 2010 Florence, South Carolina

2