FELDER v. KURLANDER
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 14 , IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW, ECF NO. 11 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SO CIAL SECURITY FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF FELDERS THERAPY NOTES, PROCURING A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FROM HER TREATING PROFESSIONALS, AND THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY FROM A MEDICAL EXPERT IF NEEDED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 4/18/17. 4/19/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, ) Modified on 4/19/2017 (mas, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WHITNEY N. FELDER,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se
Complaint, ECF No. 5, Defendant’s Answer, ECF No. 8, Plaintiff’s pro se Brief and Statement
of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 11, Defendant’s Response to Request for
Review, ECF No. 12, Plaintiff’s pro se Complaints for Damages and Motions for Jury Trial, ECF
Nos. 13, 16-18, 21, Plaintiff’s counseled 1 Motion to Withdraw Amended Complaint and
Associated Documents and Stipulation Regarding Report and Recommendation., ECF No. 23, 2
the administrative record, 3 and after review 4 of the Report and Recommendation of Jacob B.
Hart, United States Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 14, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff initiated and has been litigating this action pro se, or with the help of her father,
but an attorney entered an appearance on her behalf on April 13, 2017. ECF No. 22.
Counsel’s Motion states: “Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court adopt the
unobjected to Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart dated November
18, 2016, and remand this matter for further proceedings as set forth in the Report and
Recommendation.” ECF No. 23.
Although there is no notation on the docket reflecting the Court’s receipt of the
administrative record, the Magistrate Judge had the full transcript, and reviewed the same, prior
to issuing the Report and Recommendation. See, e.g. R&R 1-7, ECF No. 14 (citing to specific
pages and documents in the administrative record and discussing the contents thereof). The
Undersigned also has the administrative record in its possession and has reviewed the contents
The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 14, is APPROVED and
Plaintiff’s Request for Review, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further
development of the record, including consideration of Felder’s therapy notes, procuring a
functional assessment from her treating professionals, and the taking of testimony from a
medical expert if needed.
This case is CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge
When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some
level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d
874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). “When no objections are filed, the district court need only review the
record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991); see also Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397,
399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error). The “court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations” contained in the report.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
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?