Houston v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 5/20/19. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
ROBERT KERMIT HOUSTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 8:18-01144-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF DEFENDANT
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff Robert Kermit Houston (Houston) seeks
judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (Berryhill) denying his claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties are represented by excellent counsel. The matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Berryhill’s decision be affirmed. The Report was made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court

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).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on April 15, 2019. On April 29, 2019, Houston filed
his Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.’” 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Berryhill’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of May 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina.
/s/Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2