United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. (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 the court affirm the Commissioner's decision. (ECF No. 30). Although advised of the right to do so, neither party has filed objections 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 conducting the requisite review, the court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report (ECF No. 30) and incorporates is herein by reference. Accordingly, ...