McALISTER v. COLVIN, 1:12-3363-RMG. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20140605g12
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. This matter, brought pro se, comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommend
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. This matter, brought pro se, comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommenda..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter, brought pro se, comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May 13,2014 recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 33). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service and that the failure to file timely objections would result in limited review by the District Court and waiver of the right of appeal from the District Court's judgment. (Dkt. No. 33 at 23). No timely objections were filed.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds no clear error on the face ofthe record. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as the order of this Court and affirms the decision of the Commissioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
