From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Nov 8, 2011
Civil No. 2:10-2449 DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 2011)

Summary

adopting the Magistrate Judge's R&R, 2:10-cv-02449-DCN-BHH, 2011 WL 5403104 (Oct. 18, 2011) ("The plaintiff's objection stops largely at the accusation that the ALJ's consideration is too thin, which, as the plaintiff contends, is the appropriate legal point, considering the applicable standard of review, but fails to take the additional step of suggesting how the outcome could have been different. In other words, there is a failure to demonstrate anything more than the harmlessness of the error.")

Summary of this case from Latten-Reinhardt v. Astrue

Opinion

Civil No. 2:10-2449 DCN.

November 8, 2011


ORDER


This Social Security case is before the Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration be affirmed.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be `sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is incorporated into this Order. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration is AFFIRMED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Wright v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Nov 8, 2011
Civil No. 2:10-2449 DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 2011)

adopting the Magistrate Judge's R&R, 2:10-cv-02449-DCN-BHH, 2011 WL 5403104 (Oct. 18, 2011) ("The plaintiff's objection stops largely at the accusation that the ALJ's consideration is too thin, which, as the plaintiff contends, is the appropriate legal point, considering the applicable standard of review, but fails to take the additional step of suggesting how the outcome could have been different. In other words, there is a failure to demonstrate anything more than the harmlessness of the error.")

Summary of this case from Latten-Reinhardt v. Astrue

adopting the Magistrate Judge's R&R, 2:10-cv-02449-DCN-BHH, 2011 WL 5403104 (Oct. 18, 2011) ("The plaintiff's objection stops largely at the accusation that the ALJ's consideration is too thin, which, as the plaintiff contends, is the appropriate legal point, considering the applicable standard of review, but fails to take the additional step of suggesting how the outcome could have been different. In other words, there is a failure to demonstrate anything more than the harmlessness of the error.")

Summary of this case from Brown v. Astrue
Case details for

Wright v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:RONNIE WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Nov 8, 2011

Citations

Civil No. 2:10-2449 DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 2011)

Citing Cases

Lockwood v. Colvin

Therefore, even if the ALJ committed an error by failing to specifically evaluate Lockwood's combination of…

Latten-Reinhardt v. Astrue

This holding is consistent with other recent rulings from this district. See, e.g., Wright v. Astrue,…