Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01735-JMC
04-14-2017
Jonathan Spencer, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 14), filed on January 31, 2017. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff Jonathan Spencer ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this case appealing a final administrative decision by then Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin ("the Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits. (ECF No. 1.) The Report recommends that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits be affirmed. (ECF No. 14 at 32). The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as a Defendant in this lawsuit. --------
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response indicating that she would not be objecting to the Report. (ECF No. 19.) In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant matter. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
United States District Court Judge April 14, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina