Capps v. Astrue

Full title: TIMMY F. CAPPS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

Date published: Feb 23, 2009

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:08-0188-HFF-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:08-0188-HFF-WMC.

February 23, 2009

ORDER

HENRY FLOYD, District Judge

This case was filed as a Social Security action. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Defendant's final decision to deny Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits be reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with a remand to Defendant for further proceedings as discussed in the Report. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 5, 2009. Both parties have indicated to the Court that they will not be filing objections. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that that Defendant's final decision to deny Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits be REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with a REMAND to Defendant for further proceedings as discussed in the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.