Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RINEY v. ASTRUE, 9:11-0694-MBS. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20120621c80 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARGARET B. SEYMOUR, Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Dana B. Riney filed the within action on March 23, 2011, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application 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 Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. On May 24, 2012, the Magistrate
More

ORDER

MARGARET B. SEYMOUR, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Dana B. Riney filed the within action on March 23, 2011, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application 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 Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. On May 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he determined that the decision of the Commissioner was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision be affirmed. Plaintiff filed no objection 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 decision of the Commissioner 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