From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Droze v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 14, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:15-3140-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:15-3140-TMC

02-14-2017

Lee A. Droze, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff, Lee A. Droze, 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 this court affirm the Commissioner's decision to deny DIB. (ECF No. 14). Neither party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now 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 and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina
February 14, 2017


Summaries of

Droze v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 14, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:15-3140-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2017)
Case details for

Droze v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:Lee A. Droze, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner…

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:15-3140-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2017)