BOCELLI v. SAUL

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 17 , IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW/MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 13 , IS DENIED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT, THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN M. GALLAGHER ON 5/6/22. 5/6/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas)

Case 2:21-cv-00167-JMG Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
LINDA BOCELLI,

:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
ANDREW M. SAUL
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
:
Defendant.
:
__________________________________________

Civil No. 2:21-cv-00167-JMG

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2022, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF
No. 1; the Social Security Administrative Record, ECF No. 12; Plaintiff’s Request for
Review/Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13; Defendant’s Response to Request for
Review, ECF No. 14; Plaintiff’s Response in Support of Request for Review/Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 15; and upon review of the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, ECF No. 17, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 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. See 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. See 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). “A ‘plain’ error is one that is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’” Gov’t of the V.I. v. Lewis, 620 F.3d
359, 364 (3d Cir. 2010). 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

Case 2:21-cv-00167-JMG Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 2

1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2

2.

Plaintiff’s Request for Review/Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is

DENIED.
3.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant, the Acting Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration.
4.

This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John M. Gallagher
JOHN M. GALLAGHER
United States District Court Judge

2

The Court does not find any plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s proposed factual findings
or legal conclusions.