Boulware v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 5:2017cv02640 - Document 21 (D.S.C. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 1/31/2019. (gnan )

Download PDF
Boulware v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION JAMES BOULWARE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 5:17-02640-MGL OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, 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 James Boulware (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). On January 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for DIB. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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, Dockets.Justia.com the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to her with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 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). The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE January 31, 2019 Columbia, South Carolina 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.