Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2013cv00848 - Document 21 (D.S.C. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 20 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Mary G. Lewis on 05/05/2014. (bshr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Grover William Chapman, ) Civil Action No.:1:13-848-MGL ) Plaintiff, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER v. ) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________ ) This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Grover William Chapman ( Plaintiff ) brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ( Commissioner ) denying Plaintiff s claim for disability insurance benefits ( DIB ) and supplemental security income ( SSI ). On April 15, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. (ECF No. 20). No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to object has passed. 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 him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. ยง 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). A de novo review of the record indicates that the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Because no objections were filed, the court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge May 5, 2014 Spartanburg, South Carolina
]]>
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.
