United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Greenville Division
TIMOTHY M. CAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Michael Hudgens, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and 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 this court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny DIB and SSI. (ECF No. 36). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 36 at 11). However, neither party 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).
Having conducted the required review, the court finds no clear error. Therefore, the court adopts the Report and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the ...