Opinion
C/A No.: 8:12-2887-JFA-JDA
03-18-2014
Steven K. Williamson, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER
The plaintiff, Steven K. Williamson, brings this action pursuant to § 405(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits should be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge provides a detailed discussion of the undisputed and relevant medical evidence and the standards of law which this court incorporates without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and Recommendation which was filed on February 3, 2014. The plaintiff has responded with various objections and the Commissioner has replied thereto.
The facts are fully set forth in the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the administrative record, briefly summarized as follows. The plaintiff first applied for DIB in June 19, 2008 alleging an onset of disability date of September 1, 2003, later amended to June 3, 2008. The ALJ denied the claim and the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review. The plaintiff then sought judicial review of the decision with a complaint filed in this court on October 5, 2012.
As an initial matter the plaintiff's objections mirror the arguments made to, and rejected by, the Magistrate Judge. Indeed, the Report and Recommendation contains an exhaustive discussion of each and every objection raised by the plaintiff and no good purpose would be served by repeating here the careful and detailed analysis provided by the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that this court has conducted the required de novo review of all issues and matters to which an objection has been filed, and finds no reason for disturbing the well-reasoned Report of the Magistrate Judge.
It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the courts, to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court's scope of review is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole, Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was applied," Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge's Report, and the plaintiff's objections thereto, this court finds the Report is proper and is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. March 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge