TRONGO v. COLVIN

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARILYN HEFFLEY. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/15/16. 3/15/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JILL TRONGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-6740

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2016, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 3),
the answer to the complaint (Doc. No. 6), the administrative record (Doc. No. 7), the plaintiff’s
brief and statement of issues in support of request for review (Doc. No. 10), the defendant’s
response to the request for review (Doc. No. 14), the plaintiff’s reply brief (Doc. No. 17), and the
report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley on February
22, 2016 (Doc. No. 20); and no party having filed objections to the report and recommendation;
accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
2.

1

The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1
The plaintiff’s request for review is DENIED; and

According to the display receipt attendant to the docket entry for Magistrate Judge Heffley’s report and
recommendation, the clerk of court e-mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to counsel for the parties on
February 23, 2016. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1.2(8)(e), the parties had an additional three days
beyond the 14-day period provided for the filing of objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.1IV(b). Therefore, they had until March 11, 2016, to file timely objections. As of today, neither party
has filed objections to the report and recommendation.
Since neither party filed objections to Judge Heffley’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 Heffley’s report for plain error and has found none.

3.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

2