Boatwright v. Astrue

Full title: Leon D. Boatwright Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2011

Civil Action No. 8:09-2516-TLW-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 17, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 8:09-2516-TLW-BHH.

March 17, 2011

ORDER

TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge

Plaintiff has brought this action to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, regarding his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. The Report was filed on September 22, 2010. Plaintiff filed objections on October 13, 2010. The defendant filed a response to plaintiff's objections on October 27, 2010.

In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).

In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections thereto.

After a thorough review of the record, the Report, and Plaintiff's objections in accordance with the standard set forth above, and for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 24), plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 25), and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 16, 2011

Florence, South Carolina