PHANHAVONG v. COLVIN
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACOB P. HART; THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY IS AFFIRMED; AND THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HART ARE OVERRULED . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT CAROLYN W. COLVIN AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF JASON PHANTHAVONG ON PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CIVIL ACTION FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 7/16/15. 7/16/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON PHANTHAVONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action
No. 13-cv-06379
O R D E R
NOW, this 16th day of July, 2015, upon consideration of
the following documents:
1)
Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in
Support of Request for Review, which brief was
filed May 28, 2014;
2)
Defendant’s Response to Request for Review of
Plaintiff, which response was filed June 25,
2014;
3)
Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, filed July 5, 2014;
4)
Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacob B. Hart dated and filed
October 2, 2014;
5)
Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and
Recommendation, which objections were filed
October 15, 2014;
6)
Complaint filed November 14, 2013; and
7)
Answer filed March 17, 2014;
and after a thorough de novo review of the record in this
matter; it appearing that Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and
Recommendation correctly determined the legal issues presented
in this case,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and
Recommendation dated and filed October 2, 2014 is approved and
adopted. 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart are
overruled. 2
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. Id.
As more fully discussed below, I approve and adopt Magistrate
Judge Hart’s Report and Recommendation and overrule plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation.
2
Plaintiff raises five objections to Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”).
First, plaintiff objects that the ALJ erred by failing to address
evidence of a treating physician. Second, plaintiff objects that the ALJ did
not adequately explain his rejection of plaintiff’s testimony. Third,
(Footnote 2 continued):
—2—
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in
favor of defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, and against plaintiff Jason Phanthavong on
plaintiff’s Complaint seeking social security disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
close this civil action for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge
(Continuation of footnote 2):
plaintiff objects that the ALJ did not properly address the testimony of a lay
witness. Fourth, plaintiff objects that the ALJ erred by relying on vocational
expert testimony which was elicited by an improper hypothetical question and
which was inconsistent with agency policy. Fifth, plaintiff objects that the
ALJ failed to meet his obligation to develop the record.
These five objections, however, are restatements of the five
claims plaintiff outlined in his initial brief to Magistrate Judge Hart. See
Morgan v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3541001 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 30, 2009)(Buckwalter, S.J.).
Moreover, upon review of Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and Recommendation,
together with a de novo review of the matter, I conclude that the Report and
Recommendation correctly determined the legal issues raised by plaintiff.
Therefore, I approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and
Recommendation in part, and overrule plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
—3—
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?