Goldfarb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. South Carolina

Goldfarb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedSeptember 21, 2021

Docket8:21-cv-00885

StatusUnknown

This text of Goldfarb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Goldfarb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldfarb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D.S.C. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON / GREENWOOD DIVISION

Beth Ann Goldfarb, Case No. 8:21-cv-00885-TLW-JDA PLAINTIFF v. Order Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, DEFENDANT

This social security matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida because Plaintiff now resides within that district.1 ECF No. 33 at 3. Neither party filed objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision. The Court is charged with conducting a 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 in the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections by either party, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. , 718 F.2d

1 At the time the Report was filed, she resided in West Melbourne, Florida. ECF No. 10 at 3. Since then, she has changed her address to Melbourne, Florida, which is also within the Middle District of Florida. ECF No. 38. 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a 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.’”

, 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. Based on the analysis set forth in the Report and having found no clear error on the face of the record, the Report is ACCEPTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to take the appropriate steps to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge September 21, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON / GREENWOOD DIVISION

Beth Ann Goldfarb, Case No. 8:21-cv-00885-TLW-JDA PLAINTIFF v. Order Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, DEFENDANT

This social security matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida because Plaintiff now resides within that district.1 ECF No. 33 at 3. Neither party filed objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision. The Court is charged with conducting a 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 in the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections by either party, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. , 718 F.2d

1 At the time the Report was filed, she resided in West Melbourne, Florida. ECF No. 10 at 3. Since then, she has changed her address to Melbourne, Florida, which is also within the Middle District of Florida. ECF No. 38. 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a 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.’”

, 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. Based on the analysis set forth in the Report and having found no clear error on the face of the record, the Report is ACCEPTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to take the appropriate steps to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge September 21, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goldfarb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfarb-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-scd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack