KHOUNSAKNARATH v. COLVIN

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 16, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW, ECF NO. 10, IS GRANTED, AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U. S.C. § 405(G) SO THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CAN COMPLETE STEPS THREE THROUGH FIVE OF THE SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 7/14/17. 7/14/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (er, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
KOUT KHOUNSAKNARATH,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
:
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
:
Defendant.
:
__________________________________________

No. 2:16-cv-03541

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2017, upon consideration 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
ECF No. 3, Defendant’s Answer, ECF No. 7, Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in Support
of Request for Review, ECF No. 10, Defendant’s Response to Request for Review, ECF No. 13,
Plaintiff’s reply, ECF No. 14, and of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Carol Sandra
Moore Wells, United States Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 16, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16, is APPROVED and

ADOPTED.
1

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), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (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
Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding
that even when objections are filed, district courts “are not required to make any separate
findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)”); 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 district 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).
1

2.

Plaintiff’s Request for Review, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED, and the matter is

REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) so that the Administrative Law Judge can complete steps three through five of the
sequential evaluation process.
3.

This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.___________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

2