TANKSLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ORDER THAT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THIS CASE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 6/18/15. 6/18/15 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's
Request for Review and the Defendant's response thereto, and after careful review of
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Jacob P. Hart (Doc. No. 13)
and all responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:1
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The plaintiff’s Request for Review is DENIED; and
3. Judgment is entered in this case in favor of the defendant.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.
The plaintiff filed objections to Judge Hart’s Report and Recommendation. He argues that the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) reliance on the vocational testimony provided at the hearing was improper based on several agency
rulings and regulations. These are the same arguments he made in his Request for Review to which the Government
responded. Judge Hart adequately addressed these arguments. The plaintiff again raises the same arguments in his
objections. As Judge Hart explained and the Government argued in its responses, the plaintiff misreads the
applicable regulations and misconstrues the vocational witness’s testimony; the ALJ complied with the appropriate
regulations. The plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
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?