SWINDELL v. COLVIN

Filing 20

ORDER THAT THE REPORT & REOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE DATED 5/9/2017, IS APPROVED & ADOPTED. PLFF'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION, TREATED AS OBJECTIONS, ARE OVERRULED, ETC. PLFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; & PLFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 5/19/17. 5/19/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREA SWINDELL,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

NO. 16-2466

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request for
Review, Defendant’s Response to Request for Review, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Timothy R. Rice dated March 9, 2017, plaintiff’s Exceptions to the Report and
Recommendation, and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R.

Rice dated March 9, 2017, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.

Plaintiff’s Exceptions to the Report and Recommendation, treated as objections,

are OVERRULED. The objections are based on the argument that the administrative law judge
failed to fully develop the record covering a one year period from 2013 to 2014. This issue was
addressed by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation, which this Court has
approved and adopted. On this issue the Court finds that the record was appropriately developed

1

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security On January 21, 2017.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted
for Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit.

based on the credible evidence and the decision of the administrative law judge was based on
substantial evidence;
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; and,

4.

Plaintiff’s Request for Review is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2