Jacobs v. Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs objection to Magistrate Judge Cohns Report and Recommendation 26 , is OVERRULED; 2. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation 25 , of Magistrate Judge Cohn; 3. The C ommissioners decision is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiffs request for relief is DENIED; 4. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and against Plaintiff; and 5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 3/20/17. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREA LAURA JACOBS,
Plaintiff
v.

SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:15-cv-02457
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Cohn)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court is the March 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Cohn recommending that the Court affirm the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision
denying Plaintiff Andrea Laura Jacob’s application for child’s insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 25.)
Plaintiff has filed a hand-written motion paper entitled “Reply/Appealing” that this Court
construes as an objection to Magistrate Judge Cohn’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No.
26).1 Indeed, the Court observes from this filing that Plaintiff has principally objected to
Magistrate Judge Cohn’s conclusion that substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law
Judge’s determination that Plaintiff was not disabled from June 30, 2012 to May 15, 2014. (Id.)
Having considered Plaintiff’s objection, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Cohn properly and
comprehensively addressed the substance of this objection in the Report and Recommendation

1

The Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), provide that
any party may file written objections to a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.
In deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify the Report and Recommendation, the Court is to
make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); M.D. Pa. L.R. 72.3.
1

itself.2 Accordingly, the Court will not write separately to address Plaintiff’s objection to
Magistrate Judge Cohn’s Report and Recommendation.
AND SO, on this 20th day of March 2017, upon independent review of the record and
applicable law, and after careful consideration of Magistrate Judge Cohn’s Report and
Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate Judge Cohn’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 26), is OVERRULED;
2. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25), of
Magistrate Judge Cohn;
3. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff’s request for
relief is DENIED;
4. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and against Plaintiff; and
5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case.

s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2

Indeed, the Court observes from its review of Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation that Plaintiff has merely restated arguments previously presented in her April
7, 2016 brief (Doc. No. 18), and May 27, 2016 memorandum of law (Doc. No. 20), which were
considered by Magistrate Judge Cohn as reflected in the Report and Recommendation, and has
expressed her general disagreement with the Administrative Law Judge’s underlying decision.
2