Crane v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of Magistrate Judge Cohn 20 , AFFIRMING decision of Commissioner denying app for supp'l security income & disability insurance benefits of Crane, denying nunc pro tunc motion 19 by Cran for leave to file reply brief, directing Clrk of Ct to enter judgment in favor of Commissioner & against Crane, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/27/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DESIREE K. CRANE,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1097
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2015, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 20) of Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn, recommending the court dismiss the
appeal (Doc. 1) of plaintiff Desiree K. Crane (“Crane”) from the decision of the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denying her application for supplemental security
income and disability insurance benefits, and, following an independent review of
the record, the court being in agreement with Magistrate Judge Cohn that the
ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The
findings of the [Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence,
shall be conclusive.”); 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 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. 20) of Magistrate Judge Cohn is ADOPTED.

2.

The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying the application for supplemental security income and
disability insurance benefits of Desiree K. Crane is AFFIRMED.

3.

The nunc pro tunc motion (Doc. 19) of Desiree K. Crane for leave to file
a reply brief before Magistrate Judge Cohn is DENIED as moot.

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 accordance with this Third Circuit
directive.
2

4.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner
and against Desiree K. Crane as set forth in paragraph 2.

5.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania