TORRES v. COLVIN

Filing 21

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. PURSUANT TO 42 USC:405(G), THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY IS AFFIRMED, AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ESTRELLITA L. TORRES. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 12/21/16. 12/21/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ESTRELLITA L. TORRES, o/b/o D.P.
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION
No. 16-0690

v.

FILED

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration
Defendant

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of December 2016, upon consideration of the Report and
Rec.ommendation issued on December 1, 2016, by the Honorable Linda K. Caracappa, United States

Magistrate Judge ("the Magistrate Judge"), [ECF 19], and after a careful and independent review of the
record, this Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter, are supported by
substantial evidence. 1 Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2.

Plaintiffs Request for Review is DENIED.

3.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
AFFIRMED, and JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff Estrellita L. Torres.
4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:

EN TEAED
OFC 21 2016

-----

CLERK OF COURT
Neither Plaintiff nor the Acting Commissioner filed any objection and/or response to the Report and
Recommendation (the "R&R"). In the absence of any objections, this Court reviewed the R&R under the "plain
error" standard. See Facyson v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 22436274, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003). Under this plain
error standard of review,· an R&R should only be rejected if the magistrate judge commits an error that was "( 1)
clear or obvious, (2) affect[ed] 'substantial rights,' and (3) seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings." Leyva v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations
and citations omitted). Here, after a thorough review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds no error and,
therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety.