BASSETT v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 11/19/2015. 11/19/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF AND E-MAILED.(lbs, )

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