James v. Astrue, No. 3:2009mc00161 - Document 12 (D.S.C. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 1 Motion for Extension of Time filed by Vernice L James, 8 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/5/2010. (cbru, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Vernice L. James, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A No. 3:09-161-CMC-BM OPINION & ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiff, an employee of the Social Security Administration proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for extension of time to file a civil action in this court. Although Plaintiff does not specify her anticipated cause of action, her motion refers to an OWCP claim, which may indicate that Plaintiff intends to seek judicial review of a decision of the United States Department of Labor s Office of Workers Compensation Programs ( OWCP ). See Dkt. No. 1. The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ( Report ) of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, 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., and filed on January 13, 2010. Dkt. No. 8. The Report recommends that the court deny Plaintiff s motion for two reasons: (1) Plaintiff has offered no legal authority to support the proposition that the court may extend the deadline for filing a complaint through such a motion; and (2) the court lacks jurisdiction to review a final decision of the OWCP brought under the Federal Employees Compensation Act ( FECA ). Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.1 1 The Clerk of Court mailed the Report to Plaintiff on January 13, 2010. One week later, on January 20, 2010, the United States Postal Service returned the mailing to the court marked undeliverable. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (listing Plaintiff s street address); Dkt. No. 11 (indicating that mail 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 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 recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of an objection, the court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error. 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 ) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report is adopted and incorporated by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff s motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina February 5, 2010 from the United States District Court to Plaintiff s physical address was returned because there is no such [street] number. ). However, the mailing sent to Plaintiff s post office box has not been returned. Accordingly, the court presumes that the mailing to Plaintiff s post office box was received and that Plaintiff was therefore aware of the deadline for submitting objections. See Bosiger v. US Airways, Inc., 510 F.3d 442, 452 (4th Cir. 2007).

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.