JONES v. COLVIN

Filing 19

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO RETURN THIS MATTER TO THE COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED, AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 11/17/17. 11/17/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHABRAY A. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-954

ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2016, after considering the complaint filed by
the plaintiff, Shabray A. Jones (Doc. No. 3), the answer to the complaint (Doc. No. 9), the
administrative record (Doc. No. 10), the plaintiff’s brief and statement of issues in support of
request for review (Doc. No. 11), the defendant’s response to the request for review (Doc. No.
12), and the report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge David R.
Strawbridge on October 31, 2017 (Doc. No. 17); 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. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1

docket;

1

According to the display receipt attendant to the docket entry for Magistrate Judge Strawbridge’s report and
recommendation, the clerk of court e-mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to counsel for the parties on
October 31, 2017. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) the parties had 14 days to respond to the report and
recommendation. Therefore, they had until November 14, 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 Strawbridge’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

3.

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

court vacate the decision of the Commissioner and remand 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.

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 Stawbridge’s report for plain error and has found none.

2