ROSA v. COLVIN

Filing 20

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC.; THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION DENYING PLAINTFF'S CLAIM FOR BENEFITS IS VACATED; AND, THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURTY, ETC. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 03/22/2018. 03/22/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LILLIAN ROSA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-5923

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2018, upon consideration
of the parties’ submissions, the record, and the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret
(ECF No. 18), there being no objections,1 it is hereby ORDERED
that:
1.
1

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

When neither party files timely objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) on a dispositive issue,
the district court is not required to review the R&R before
adopting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of
a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or
any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”). However, the Third Circuit has held that “in the
absence of objections . . . the better practice is for the
district judge 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); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72, 1983 advisory
committee notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). In that
neither party has filed objections to the R&R, this Court has
reviewed it for clear error and has found none.

ADOPTED;
2.

Plaintiff’s Request for Review is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part.

The Request for Review is GRANTED to the

extent that it seeks a reversal of the Commissioner’s decision
denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits.

The Request for Review is

DENIED to the extent it seeks a determination by this Court that
Plaintiff is entitled to social security benefits;
3.

The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s

claim for benefits is VACATED;
4.

This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of

Social Security in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report
and Recommendation; and
5.

The Clerk of Court shall remove this case from

suspense and mark the case as CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

2