United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Aiken Division
December 12, 2014
TIMOTHY LEROY WILSON, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Timothy Leroy Wilson brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Defendant”) final decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court affirm Defendant’s decision. (Doc. #33). Plaintiff’s objections to the Report were due by on December 4, 2014. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and this matter is ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s 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 Report waives the right to appellate review of that claim. See id. at 315-16.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in accordance with this standard and concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #33). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.