United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
September 9, 2014
Claude Burgess, Plaintiff,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
This social security matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed on August 12, 2014 by Magistrate Judge Rogers, to whom this case was assigned. (Doc. #24.) In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits. Objections to the R&R were due August 29, 2014. Plaintiff did not file any objections. This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, a party's failure to file specific written objections to the R&R waives the right to appellate review of that claim. See id.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the R&R is ACCEPTED and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.