Mason v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Marchant's Report is accepted and the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 08/08/2013. (egra, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
William J. Mason,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:12-1157-TLW-BM
ORDER

Plaintiff has brought this action to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant,
Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability benefits. 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 Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The Report was filed on April
23, 2013. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on May 10, 2013. Defendant filed a response to
Plaintiff’s objections on May 28, 2013.
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
1

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 this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. This Court has carefully considered all of the arguments asserted by the Plaintiff.
Specifically, with regards to the alleged onset date of disability and whether or not a scrivener’s error
was committed, the Court finds the Plaintiff’s position to be without sufficient legal merit and
unsupported by the evidence of record. After careful consideration, the Court determines that the
medical records support the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that there was no disability
during the relevant time period. Accordingly, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
After a thorough review of the record, the Report, and Plaintiff’s objections in accordance
with the standard set forth above, and for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 17), Plaintiff’s objections
are OVERRULED (Doc. # 19), and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 8, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

2