Whitehill v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 14 of Magistrate Judge Cohn, AFFIRMING decision of Commissioner of Social Security denying Whitehill's app for disability insurance benefits, directing Clrk of Ct to enter jdgmt in favor of Commissioner & against Whitehill, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/16/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAREN LOUISE WHITEHILL,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2802
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2015, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 14) of Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn, wherein Judge Cohn recommends
the court dismiss the appeal (Doc. 1) of plaintiff Karen Louise Whitehill and affirm
the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denying plaintiff’s application
for disability insurance benefits, and concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence, and, after an independent review of the record, the court in
agreement with Judge Cohn that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision,
see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring the district court to accept as “conclusive” any
factual finding by the ALJ “supported by substantial evidence”); see also Fargnoli v.
Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Where . . . findings of fact are supported
by substantial evidence, [the district court is] bound by those findings, even if [the
court] would have decided the factual inquiry differently.”), and it appearing that
neither party has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report, and that there is

no clear error on the face of the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir.
2007) (explaining that “failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in
a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court
level”), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 19) of Magistrate Judge Cohn is ADOPTED.

2.

The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying Karen Louise Whitehill’s application for disability insurance
benefits is AFFIRMED.

3.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner
and against Karen Louise Whitehill as set forth in paragraph 2.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

When parties fail to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to
review the report before accepting it. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford
some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the
failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss
of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d
676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the
“plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the
face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The
court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s report in according with this Third Circuit
directive.