King v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 20 Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and that Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. F or the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/22/2014. (jbry, ) (Main Document 25 replaced on 8/22/2014) (jbry, ). Modified on 8/22/2014 to replace incorrect document with correct document (jbry, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
SHIRLEY D. KING,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 9:13-cv-00250-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Shirley King brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain
judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Defendant”) final
decision denying her claims 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 was 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 this Court affirm Defendant’s decision. (Doc.
#20). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on April 25, 2014. (Doc. #22). Defendant filed a
reply to the objections on May 5, 2014. (Doc. #23). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto. It is
hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #20) is
ACCEPTED and that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. #22) are OVERRULED. For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 22, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina