Burke v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge Marchant for clear error. Finding none, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/15/2012. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Scott A. Burke,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 9:11-2360-CMC-BM

OPINION & ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Plaintiff
appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is currently before the court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed on September 17, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be affirmed. Dkt. No. 22. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which were due on
October 4, 2012.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 (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
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report
by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 15, 2012

2