Lindsay v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 6:2017cv00051 - Document 24 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/6/2017.(abuc)
Download PDF
Lindsay v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Athena Catoe Lindsay, ) ) C/A No. 6:17-0051-MBS Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND OPINION Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Plaintiff Athena Catoe Lindsay filed the within action on January 6, 2017, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. On November 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he determined that the Commissioner’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is free of legal error. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 Commissioner’s decision is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina December 6, 2017 2