King v. Berryhill, 6:17-338-RMG. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20180405c54
Visitors: 25
Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). 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 March 15, 2018 af
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). 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 March 15, 2018 aff..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). 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 March 15, 2018 affirming the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff DIB from her alleged onset date of December 31, 2011 until January 20, 2015, and granting DIB forthe period on and after January 21, 2015. (Dkt. No. 21). No party filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds no clear error on the face of the record. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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
