Koss v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Report and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 09/23/2014. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Kevin Daniel Koss,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:13-2500-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, Kevin Daniel Koss, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (“SSA”). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for
pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending that this court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny DIB and
SSI. (ECF No. 23). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF
No. 23 at 20). However, neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has
now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.” 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).
Having conducted the required review, the court finds no clear error. Therefore, the court
adopts the Report and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final
decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
September 23, 2014