Vandross v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/3/2017.(abuc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Makisha H. Vandross,
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of the Social
Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-01915-RBH
Plaintiff Makisha H. Vandross seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration denying her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R &
R) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, 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. See R & R [ECF
No. 25]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision.
R & R at 1, 59.
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, 270–71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 25]. Accordingly, the
Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
August 3, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Objections to the R & R were due by August 1, 2017. ECF No. 25.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?