Holmes v. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Methvin 37 , DENYING deft's MSJ 26 , GRANTING pltf's MSJ 29 w/ re: eligibility for long-term disability benefits effective 4/13/02 & directing Clrk of Ct to ent er JUDGMENT in favor of pltf on this claim & REMANDING issue of Plan's 24 month limitation to MetLife for further review, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE matter. (See memo & order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/17/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAIME LYNN HOLMES,
Plaintiff
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-070
(Judge Conner)

MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mildred E. Methvin (Doc. 37),
recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 26) be denied and
that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) be granted and, following an
independent review of the record and noting that defendant filed objections1 to the
report on August 29, 2011 (Doc. 38), and the Court finding Judge Methvin’s analysis to be
thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding defendant’s objections2 to be without

1

Defendant Arnold Transportation Services, Inc., has moved to strike
plaintiff’s pro se objections (Doc. 83) on the grounds that they fail to comply with
Local Rule 72.3 and that they argue facts not of record. To the extent plaintiff’s pro
se objections rely on unsworn statements and newly identified documents,
defendant Arnold’s motion to strike is granted. Simply stated, these pro se
objections are based upon extra record assertions and, therefore, fail to comply with
Local Rule 56.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Nonetheless, in the exercise of caution, the
Court has reviewed the remaining pro se objections in context and finds them to be
without merit. See note 2 infra.
2

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires

merit and squarely addressed by Judge Methvin’s report (Doc. 37), with the sole
exception of the applicability of the Plan’s 24 month limitation, and the Court finding
that this issue should be remanded to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”
to consider, inter alia, the documentation set forth in footnotes 98 and 99 of the
Magistrate’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Methvin (Doc. 37)
are ADOPTED in part.

2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 26) is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED with
respect to eligibility for long-term disability benefits effective April 13, 2008.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of plaintiff on
this claim. The issue of the Plan’s 24 month limitation is hereby
REMANDED to MetLife for further review.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).
2