United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Florence Division
Corey B. Richardson, Plaintiff,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge
Plaintiff Corey B. Richardson (“Plaintiff”) filed this appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 43. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the matter to the Commissioner for the purpose of a proper evaluation, discussion, and findings with respect to the VA disability rating, and for such further administrative action as is deemed necessary and appropriate. See Id. at 12.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the R & R of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for the purpose of a proper evaluation, discussion, and findings with respect to the VA ...