WILKERSON v. ASTRUE

Filing 13

ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF JUDGE HART 12 IS ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. CLAIMANT'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE MATTER SHALL BE REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIMANT'S CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME, ULCERATIVE COLITIS, LIMITATION IN CONCENTRATION, PERSISTENCE AND PACE, AND GAF SCORES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 10/16/2013. 10/18/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHELLE WILKERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
2:13-CV-199

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of October 2013, upon finding that neither party has objected to
the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart, and after a review of the report
and recommendation for clear error,1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.)

The report and recommendation of Judge Hart, (Doc. No. 12), is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

2.)

Claimant’s request for review is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

3.)

The matter shall be REMANDED for reconsideration of Claimant’s carpal tunnel
syndrome, ulcerative colitis, limitation in concentration, persistence and pace, and
GAF scores.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ C. Darnell Jones II, J.
C. DARNELL JONES II, J.

1

When timely objections are filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, 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). If there are no objections to the report and recommendation
or when reviewing those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
directed if there are objections, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987).