Stephanie B. v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION STEPHANIE B., § Plaintiff, § § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:25-12234-MGL § COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § Defendant. § ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF DEFENDANT Plaintiff Stephanie B. filed this action asking the Court to review Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s decision to deny her claims for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed inasmuch as Stephanie B. neglected to establish the Commissioner’s decision to deny her claims was unsupported by substantial evidence or/and controlled by an error of law. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 18, 2026, but Stephanie B. failed to file any objections to the Report.

“[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 . . . there is no clear error on the face of the record . . . 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (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. It is therefore the judgment of the Court the Commissioner’s decision to deny Stephanie’s claims for benefits is AFFIRMED inasmuch as she neglected to establish the Commissioner’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or/and controlled by an error of law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 2nd day of June, 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE