Stawaisz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 36

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 31 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/14/2017.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Susan Stawaisz,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of the
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-04542-JMC

ORDER AND OPINION

Susan Stawaisz (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the defendant,
the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“the Acting Commissioner”), which denied her
claims for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (ECF No. 1). On November 10, 2015,
Plaintiff filed the complaint seeking an order from this court reversing the Acting
Commissioner’s finding that Plaintiff does not meet the requirements to receive SSI based on her
intellectual impairments. (ECF No. 1).
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.VII.02 for the District of South
Carolina. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On January 26, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that the decision of the Acting Commissioner be affirmed
because Plaintiff did not demonstrate deficits in adaptive functioning. (ECF No. 31). The
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein
without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court. See Mathews 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 and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was notified of her right to file objections. (ECF No. 31-1). Plaintiff was
required to file objections by February 13, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to
the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
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). Instead, the court 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).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the
instant matter.

The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 31), and

incorporates it herein by reference.

For the reasons set out in the Report, the Acting

Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
February 14, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3