= 3 Be

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION KAREN M. JOY, § Plaintiff, § § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-1995-MGL-KFM § ANDREW SAUL, § Commissioner of Social Security § Administration, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING DEFENDANT?’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff Karen M. Joy (Joy) seeks judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Andrew Saul (Saul) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Saul’s decision be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report in accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 the Court. Mathews vy. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 18, 2019. But, Joy failed any objections. “[I]n 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.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Saul’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 8th day of January, 2020, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the date hereof, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2