From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spencer v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Apr 14, 2017
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01735-JMC (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01735-JMC

04-14-2017

Jonathan Spencer, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 14), filed on January 31, 2017. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff Jonathan Spencer ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this case appealing a final administrative decision by then Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin ("the Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits. (ECF No. 1.) The Report recommends that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits be affirmed. (ECF No. 14 at 32). The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as a Defendant in this lawsuit. --------

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties were notified of their right to file objections. On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response indicating that she would not be objecting to the Report. (ECF No. 19.) In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant matter. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

United States District Court Judge April 14, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina


Summaries of

Spencer v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Apr 14, 2017
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01735-JMC (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017)
Case details for

Spencer v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:Jonathan Spencer, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 14, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01735-JMC (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017)

Citing Cases

Fallaw v. Berryhill

However, just because Plaintiff introduced new evidence to the Appeals Council does not mean that remand is…

Butler v. Berryhill

Therefore, the Appeals council did not have to explain why it denied review, and the court finds no error.…