Harts v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 0:2010cv01893 - Document 22 (D.S.C. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendations, affirming the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/17/2012. (ydav, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Carl Edward Harts, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) C/A No. 0:10-1893-CMC OPINION & ORDER Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s claim for Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ) and Disability Insurance Benefits ( DIB ). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ( Report ) of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C. The Report, filed on January 30, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Dkt. No. 19. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which were due on February 16, 2012. 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 of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 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. ) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee s note). The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina February 17, 2012 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.