From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Aug 17, 2012
C/A No. 1:11-850-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2012)

Opinion

C/A No. 1:11-850-CMC-SVH

08-17-2012

Carmen Maria Martinez, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


OPINION & ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.

The Report, filed on July 30, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Dkt. No. 18. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which were due on August 16, 2012.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________

CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina

August 17, 2012


Summaries of

Martinez v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Aug 17, 2012
C/A No. 1:11-850-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Martinez v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Carmen Maria Martinez, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Aug 17, 2012

Citations

C/A No. 1:11-850-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2012)

Citing Cases

Jenkins v. Colvin

Washington, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 579. Courts in this district have determined that an ALJ's failure to consider…