SAUNDERS v. COLVIN

Filing 17

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:1. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO RETURN THIS MATTER TO THE COURTS ACTIVE DOCKET;2. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 16) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED;3. THE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED INSOFAR AS SHE REQUESTS THAT THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER BE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS;4. THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS VACATED AND THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER, PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G), FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND5. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/29/2016. 3/29/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAMERRA SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4985

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2016, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 3),
the answer (Doc. No. 7), and the administrative record (Doc. No. 8); and after considering the
report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin (Doc. No.
16); and after reviewing the plaintiff’s brief and statement of issues in support of the request for
review (Doc. No. 9), the defendant’s response to the request for review (Doc. No. 12), and the
plaintiff’s reply brief (Doc. No. 14); and no party having filed objections to the report and
recommendation; accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to return this matter to the court’s active

2.

The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1

docket;

1

Since neither party has filed objections to Judge Perkin’s report and recommendation, the court need not review
the report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, “the better
practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Id.
As such, the court will review the report for plain error. See Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa.
1998) (“In the absence of a timely objection, . . . this Court will review [the magistrate judge’s] Report and
Recommendation for clear error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The 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). The
court has reviewed Judge Perkin’s report for plain error and has found none.

3.

The plaintiff’s request for review is GRANTED insofar as she requests that the

decision of the Commissioner be vacated and remanded for further proceedings;
4.

The final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and this matter is

REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further
proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation; and
5.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

2