Jackson v. SSA

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of Magistrate Judge Saporito 14 , DISMISSING pltf's appeal 1 from decision of Commissioner of Social Security w/out prejudice, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/24/15. (ki)

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1898
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2015, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 14) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court
dismiss pro se plaintiff’s appeal (Doc. 1) of the decision of the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits, wherein
Judge Saporito finds that plaintiff has failed to prosecute her appeal and failed to
comply with an order of court, (see Doc. 14 at 2-5), and, after an independent review
of the record, the court in agreement with Judge Saporito that plaintiff’s failure to
file a brief in support of her appeal as required by the Local Rules of Court and by
the court’s order (Doc. 13) of January 26, 2015, warrants dismissal of her appeal, see
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (providing for dismissal of an action when “the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”), 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. 14) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s appeal (Doc. 1) from the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3.

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.