PERSAD v. ASTRUE

Filing 14

ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE HART'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DECISION OF THE ACTING COMMISSIONER IS AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR REMAND IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HART ARE OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS EN TERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT CAROLYN W. COLVIN AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF RAMJASS PERSAD. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 10/6/2014. 10/7/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMJASS PERSAD,
Plaintiff
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration
Defendant
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Interested Party

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 11-cv-03506

O R D E R
NOW, this 6th day of October, 2014, upon consideration
of the following documents:
(1)

Complaint filed May 31, 2011;

(2)

Answer filed July 29, 2011;

(3)

Plaintiff Ramjass Persad’s Brief and Statement of
Issues in Support of Request for Review, which
brief and statement of issues was filed
October 3, 2011;

(4)

Defendant’s Response to Request for Review of
Plaintiff, which response was filed November 1,
2011;

(5)

Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart dated and filed
October 21, 2013;

(6)

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge, which objections were filed November 4,
2013; and

(7)

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to
the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, which response to
objections was filed November 7, 2014;

after a thorough review of the record in this matter; it
appearing that plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hart’s
Report and Recommendation are essentially a restatement of the
issues raised in plaintiff’s request for review, and are without
merit; it further appearing after de novo review of this matter
that Magistrate Judge Hart correctly determined the legal and
factual issues presented,,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and
Recommendation is approved and adopted. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Acting
Commissioner is affirmed.

1

The extent of review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is committed to the discretion of the district court.
Jozefick v. Shalala, 854 F.Supp. 342, 347 (M.D.Pa. 1994). However, the
district court must review de novo those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The
court may “accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate’s
findings or recommendations.” Brophy v. Halter, 153 F.Supp.2d 667, 669
(E.D.Pa. 2001)(Padova, J.); Rule 72.1(IV)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, district judges have wide latitude regarding how
they treat recommendations of the magistrate judge. See United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). Indeed, by
providing for a de novo determination, rather than a de novo hearing,
Congress intended to permit a district judge, in the exercise of the court’s
sound discretion, the option of placing whatever reliance the court chooses
to place on the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and conclusions. I may
accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, any of the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Raddatz, supra.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for
review is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s alternative
request for remand is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart are
overruled. 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in
favor of defendant Carolyn W. Colvin and against plaintiff
Ramjass Persad.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ___
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

2

As noted above, plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hart’s
Report and Recommendation merely restate the underlying claims contained in
his request for review. Moreover, upon review of the Report and Recommendation, together with de novo review of the entire record, I conclude that
the Report and Recommendation correctly determines the legal and factual
issues raised by plaintiff.
Accordingly, I approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report
and Recommendation and overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to it.

-3-