SITES v. COLVIN et al
ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO RETURN THIS MATTER TO THE COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 19) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS AFFIRMED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 4/18/17. 4/18/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(er, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-5301
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2017, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 1-1),
the answer to the complaint (Doc. No. 7), the administrative record (Doc. No. 6), the plaintiff’s
brief and statement of issues in support of her request for review (Doc. No. 8), the defendant’s
response to the request for review (Doc. No. 15), the plaintiff’s reply brief (Doc. No. 17), and the
report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey on March
30, 2017 (Doc. No. 19); and no party having filed objections to the report and recommendation;
accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The clerk of court is DIRECTED to return this matter to the court’s active
The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 19) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1
According to the display receipt attendant to the docket entry for Magistrate Judge Hey’s report and
recommendation, the clerk of court e-mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to counsel for the parties on
March 30, 2017. The parties had a fourteen days to file objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 72.1IV(b). Therefore, they had until April 13, 2017, to file timely objections. As of today, neither
party has filed objections to the report and recommendation.
Since neither party filed objections to Judge Hey’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
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.
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 Judge Hey’s report for plain error and has found none.
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?