From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tyler ex rel. Tyler v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Feb 29, 2012
C/A No. 8:10-2218-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2012)

Opinion

C/A No. 8:10-2218-MBS

02-29-2012

Lynn Tyler, on behalf of Katelyn M. Tyler, a minor child, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Lynn Tyler, proceeding pro se on behalf her minor child, of Katelyn M. Tyler, filed the within action on August 25, 2010, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Katelyn's application for child's insurance benefits prior to January 2006.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pretrial handling. On February 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined that the decision of the Commissioner was supported by substantial evidence because Katelyn's eligibility for benefits began, as a matter of law, twelve months before Plaintiff applied for benefits on Katelyn's behalf. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(j)(1), 423(b). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision be affirmed. Plaintiff filed no objection to the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).

The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Margaret B. Seymour

Chief United States District Judge

Columbia, South Carolina

February 29, 2012

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Tyler ex rel. Tyler v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Feb 29, 2012
C/A No. 8:10-2218-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Tyler ex rel. Tyler v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Lynn Tyler, on behalf of Katelyn M. Tyler, a minor child, Plaintiff, v…

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

Date published: Feb 29, 2012

Citations

C/A No. 8:10-2218-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2012)