Caso v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, No. 2:2011cv02751 - Document 29 (D.S.C. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER RULING ON 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Hendricks 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. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/31/2012. (egra, )

Download PDF
Caso v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Cheryl Ann Caso, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) C/A No. 2:11-2751-CMC-BHH OPINION & ORDER Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Social Security Income (“SSI”). 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 Bruce H. Hendricks, 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 October 10, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Dkt. No. 25. The parties were advised of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No objections were filed and the deadline for filing objections 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 October 31, 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.