From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Apr 5, 2016
C/A No. 9:16-374-TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2016)

Opinion

C/A No. 9:16-374-TMC

04-05-2016

Willie Lee Scott, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff, Willie Lee Scott, proceeding pro se, 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 Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") 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 action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 12). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 12 at 3). However, no objections have been filed to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.

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).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 12) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge April 5, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Scott v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Apr 5, 2016
C/A No. 9:16-374-TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2016)
Case details for

Scott v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Case Details

Full title:Willie Lee Scott, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2016

Citations

C/A No. 9:16-374-TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2016)