Filing 21


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _______________________________________ ROBERT BASSETT, : : v. : : SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, : Defendant. : _______________________________________ Plaintiff, No. 2:13-cv-5583 MEMORANDUM Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19- Adopted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. United States District Judge I. November 19, 2015 Introduction On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his claim for supplemental security income. On June 4, 2014, after receipt of the parties’ briefing, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On October 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge Heffley issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff’s request for review be denied. R&R, ECF No. 19. No objections have been filed and, for the reasons set forth below, the R&R will be adopted. II. Standard of Review When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). “When no objections are filed, the 1 district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991); see also Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). III. Discussion In the absence of objections, this Court has reviewed the record for plain error and has found none. The R&R first outlines the factual and procedural background of the case, then sets forth the applicable standard of review. R&R 1-3. Magistrate Judge Heffley reviews the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and finds that the ALJ properly considered all the evidence and gave correct weight to the medical evidence. R&R 3-8. Magistrate Judge Heffley explains why the ALJ properly discredited Plaintiff’s testimony. R&R 8-11. The Magistrate Judge further concludes that the ALJ considered the testimony of a vocational expert regarding the number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff was capable of performing. R&R 1112. Finally, Magistrate Judge Heffley finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and recommends that the request for review be denied. R&R 12. After review and in the absence of objections, this Court will adopt the R&R. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?