Filed: Aug. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to obtain relief from the final decision ofthe Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration denying him Supplemental Security Income ("SS1"). In accord with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on July 16,2014, recommending t
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to obtain relief from the final decision ofthe Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration denying him Supplemental Security Income ("SS1"). In accord with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on July 16,2014, recommending th..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain relief from the final decision ofthe Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration denying him Supplemental Security Income ("SS1"). In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on July 16,2014, recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 17). No party filed timely objections to the R & R.
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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination ofthose portions of the R & R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The role ofthe federal judiciary in the administrative scheme ofthe Social Security Act is a limited one. Section 405(g) of the Act provides that "[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than a scintilla, but less than preponderance." Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541,543 (4th Cir. 1964). This standard precludes de novo review of factual circumstances that substitutes the Court's findings for those ofthe Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971).
Although the federal court's review role is limited, "it does not follow, however, that the findings ofthe administrative agency are mechanically accepted. The statutorily granted right of review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative action." Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). "[T]he courts must not abdicate their responsibility to give careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the [Commissioner'S] findings." Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.
After a review of the R & R, the administrative record, the decision ofthe Administrative Law Judge, and the applicable legal standards, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that the decision ofthe Commissioner should be affirmed. Therefore, the Court adopts the R & R ofthe Magistrate Judge and affirms the decision ofthe Commissioner.1
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
