Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lindsay v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 6:17-0051-MBS. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20171208g36 Visitors: 29
Filed: Dec. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION MARGARET B. SEYMOUR , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Athena Catoe Lindsay filed the within action on January 6, 2017, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. On Novemb
More

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Athena Catoe Lindsay filed the within action on January 6, 2017, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. On November 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he determined that the Commissioner's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is free of legal error. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).

The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer