Filed: Jun. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Michael John Richwalski ("Plaintiff") brought an action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying his claim for Disability Insura
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Michael John Richwalski ("Plaintiff") brought an action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying his claim for Disability Insuran..
More
ORDER AND OPINION
MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Michael John Richwalski ("Plaintiff") brought an action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends affirming the Commissioner's decision. No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is 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). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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).
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 adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
