United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
(ECF No. 19), recommending that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
court concludes upon its own careful review of the record
that the factual and procedural summation in the Report (ECF
No. 19) is accurate, and the court adopts this summary as its
own. Subsequently, the court will only recite herein, facts
pertinent to the court's review of the Report (ECF No.
19). On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett
filed the Report (ECF No. 19) and on December 21, 2017,
Plaintiff timely filed an Objection (ECF No. 20). On January
4, 2018, the Commissioner replied. (ECF No. 21.)
court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) which gives the court jurisdiction over a
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court,
which 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 Report to which specific objections are made.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “In the absence of a timely
filed, specific objection, the magistrate judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error.”
James v. Cohen, No. CV 1:17-01256-TMC, 2017 WL
4371548, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 2017) (citing Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, “[i]n the absence of
objection, for which provision is made by the statute [28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)], we do not believe [the
court's acceptance of the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation] requires any explanation.”
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
to file specific written objections to the Report results in
a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment
of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners
Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he
Supreme Court has authorized the waiver rule that we enforce.
. . . ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule
conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court
judgment that adopts a magistrate's recommendation, upon
the filing of objections with the district court identifying
those issues on which further review is desired.'”)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
Objection (ECF No. 20) was not specific to the Magistrate
Judge's Report, as she reiterates the same argument that
she made in her initial brief regarding the little weight
given to the opinion of her treating physician, Dr.
Teachman. (ECF Nos. 10 at 8-9; 20 at 1-2.) Plaintiff
did not specifically address any of the Report's finding,
including the findings that she failed to demonstrate that
the administrative law judge's (“ALJ”)
decision to give Dr. Teachman's opinion little weight was
not based on substantial evidence. (ECF No. 19 at 5-9.)
Plaintiff simply re-alleged that the ALJ substituted her own
medical expertise for that of Dr. Teachman, by not giving Dr.
Teachman's opinion substantial weight. (ECF No. 20 at 2.)
Without specific objections to any part of the Report, the
court does not need to review the Report de novo,
but must only ensure that no clear error has been made.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3); James,
2017 WL 4371548, at *1.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of
the facts and law. Therefore, the court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No.
20) and ACCEPTS the Report (ECF No. 19)
affirming the Commissioner's decision.