TORRES-RENTAS v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Filing 15

ORDER OF 7/22/19 THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL REMOVE THIS MATTER FROM CIVIL SUSPENSE AND RETURN IT TO THE COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDADTION (DOC. NO. 13) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED; THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS AFFIRMED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY JUDGE: EDWARD G. SMITH ON 7/22/2019. 7/22/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(DT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CARMEN H. TORRES-RENTAS, o/b/o
JOSE ANTONIO RENTAS-RODRIGUEZ
(dec’d),
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration, 1
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-2330

ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2019, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 2),
the answer (Doc. No. 8), the administrative record (Doc. No. 7), the plaintiff’s brief in support of
her request for review (Doc. No. 9), the defendant’s response to the request for review (Doc. No.
10), the plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s response (Doc. No. 12), and the report and
recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley (Doc. No. 13); and no
party having filed objections to the report and recommendation; accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The clerk of court shall REMOVE this matter from civil suspense and RETURN

it to the court’s active docket;
2.

1

The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2

Andrew M. Saul was sworn in as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on June 17, 2019, for a
six-year term that expires on January 19, 2025. See https://www.ssa.gov/agency/commissioner/html (last visited July
19, 2019). Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has substituted Commissioner
Saul as the defendant in this action.
2
Since neither party filed objections to Magistrate Judge Heffley’s report and recommendation, the court need not
review the report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, “the
better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.”
Id. As such, the court will review the report for plain error. See Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa.
1998) (“In the absence of a timely objection, . . . this Court will review [the magistrate judge’s] Report and

3.

The plaintiff’s request for review is DENIED;

4.

The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and

5.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

Recommendation for clear error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The 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). The
court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Heffley’s report for plain error and has found none.

2