Hiott v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is ordered that the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying benefits is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 05/23/2017. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
John Roger Hiott,
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No. 9:16-1420-BHH
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff John Roger Hiott’s complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. The record includes the report and recommendation
(“Report”) of a United States Magistrate Judge, which was made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. In the Report, which was
filed on May 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision denying benefits. Attached to the Report was a notice advising
Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report. To date, no objections have
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
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 only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are 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). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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).
Here, because no objections were filed, 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 hereby adopts the Report (ECF No. 17) and incorporates
it herein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision
denying benefits is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 23, 2017
Charleston, 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?