From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamiter v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 10, 2016
Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-03464-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2016)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-03464-RBH

02-10-2016

Travis Holmes Hamiter, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Travis Holmes Hamiter seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his claim for child's insurance benefits. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 15. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. R & R at 7.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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)).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 13] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina
February 10, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell

R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hamiter v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 10, 2016
Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-03464-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2016)
Case details for

Hamiter v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:Travis Holmes Hamiter, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Feb 10, 2016

Citations

Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-03464-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2016)

Citing Cases

Horton v. Colvin

Although Plaintiff alleged his birth date as the onset date of disability, he only became eligible for CIB…