United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Jessie Ree Neely brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's ("Defendant") final decision denying her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge 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 reverse Defendant's decision and remand the case for further administrative action. (Doc. #20). Defendant filed a notice stating that she will not submit objections to the Report (Doc. #22), and this matter is now ripe for decision.
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. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #20). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, ...