Boren v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. The Commissioners decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/21/2012.(cwhi, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jennifer L. Boren, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 9:11-520-TLW-BM ORDER Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, 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 Plaintiff filed an Objection, (Doc. # 18), to which the Defendant replied. (Doc. # 19). The matter is now ripe for review. 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 record, the Magistrate Judge’s analysis as found in the Report, and the Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report. After careful review, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. # 16). 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 September 21, 2012 Florence, South Carolina  

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?