Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Berryhill, 0:16-3879-MBS. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20180606e79 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARGARET B. SEYMOUR , District Judge . Plaintiff Robert Johnson filed the within action on December 6, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's claims for supplemental security income. By order filed December 8, 2016, the case was transferred to this court. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to U
More

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Johnson filed the within action on December 6, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's claims for supplemental security income. By order filed December 8, 2016, the case was transferred to this court. 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 Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling.

On April 9, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. No party filed objections 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