From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grim v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 16, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:15-3698-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:15-3698-TMC

02-16-2017

Leland Howard Grim, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff, Leland Howard Grim, Jr., brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under the Social Security Act ("SSA"). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the court affirm the Commissioner's decision to deny DIB. (ECF No. 16). On February 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of his intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 17). Further, the Commissioner has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has run.

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on January 27, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this action. --------

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270- 71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Having conducted the required review, the court finds no clear error. Therefore, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 16), and the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina
February 16, 2017


Summaries of

Grim v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 16, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:15-3698-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2017)
Case details for

Grim v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:Leland Howard Grim, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting…

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

Date published: Feb 16, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:15-3698-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2017)