MULLIN v. COLVIN
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED, AND THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS REVERSED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS J. RUETERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS REMAND ONLY. THIS CASE IS CLOSED SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 10/20/17. 10/23/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(er, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEBORAH MULLIN ,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2017, upon consideration 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
ECF No. 1; Defendant’s Answer, ECF No. 7; the Social Security Administrative Record, ECF
No. 8; Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 14;
Defendant’s Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, ECF No. 20; Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in
Support of Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement, ECF No. 22; and the Report and Recommendation
On January 23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted as the defendant in this case.
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).
(“R&R”) of Thomas J. Rueter, United States Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 23, IT IS ORDERED
The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Review is GRANTED, and the decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED to the extent that the matter
is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
proceedings consistent with United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter’s Report and
Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff, reversing the decision of the
Commissioner for the purpose of this remand only.
This case is CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge
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?