LABADIE v. BURWELL et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO RETURN THIS MATTER TO THE COURTS ACTIVE DOCKET; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 16 ) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED; THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS AFFIRMED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 4/7/17. 4/7/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-3493

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2017, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 1),
the answer to the complaint (Doc. No. 6), the administrative record (Doc. No. 7), the plaintiff’s
brief in support of her motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12), the defendant’s response to
the request for review (Doc. No. 13), and the report and recommendation filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey on March 22, 2017 (Doc. No. 16); 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

According to the display receipt attendant to the docket entry for Magistrate Judge Hey’s report and
recommendation, the clerk of court e-mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to counsel for the parties on
March 22, 2017. The parties had a fourteen days to file objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 72.1IV(b). Therefore, they had until April 5, 2017, to file timely objections. As of today, neither
party has filed objections to the report and recommendation.
Since neither party filed objections to Judge Hey’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 Hey’s report for plain error and has found none.

3.

The plaintiff’s request for review is DENIED;

4.

The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; 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