TRABOSH v. COLVIN

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN. THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IS DENIED. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS AFFIRMED. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 7/24/17. 7/24/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
GARY A. TRABOSH,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1 Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,

No. 5:15-cv-00004

Defendant.
__________________________________________

ORDER
The undersigned referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin
for a report and recommendation. On June 26, 2017, Judge Perkin issued a report and
recommendation that Trabosh’s appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner be denied.
Twenty-eight days have passed, and no objections have been filed. 2
This 24th day of July, 2017, having reviewed the report and recommendation, 3 it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, is ADOPTED.

2.

The relief sought by Plaintiff is DENIED.

3.

The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

4.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

BY THE COURT:

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

1

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and by
operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), she is automatically substituted as the defendant to this action.
2
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing that a party who wishes to object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation must file written objections within “fourteen days after being served with a copy”).
3
See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“While [§ 636] may not require, in the
absence of objections, the district court to review the magistrate’s report before accepting it, we believe that the
better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.”
(citation omitted)).

1