Shiffka v. Colvin

Filing 31

ORDER: 1. The report 29 of M.J Carlson is ADOPTED.2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Shiffka and against the Commissioner as set forth in the following paragraph.3. The Commissioners decision is VACATED and this matter is REMAND ED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new administrative hearing, develop the record fully, and evaluate the evidence appropriately as pertains Shiffkas separate applications in accordance with this order and the report (Doc. 29) of Magistrate Judge Carlson.4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/18/17. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEVIN M. SHIFFKA,
Plaintiff
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1506
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2017, upon consideration of the
report (Doc. 29) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the
court remand the above-captioned matter to the administrative law judge for
further, separate, and independent consideration of the Title II and Title XVI
applications for benefits filed by plaintiff Kevin M. Shiffka (“Shiffka”), (id. at 25),
and it appearing that neither Shiffka nor the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) objects to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and that the
Commissioner expressly waives the opportunity to do so, (see Doc. 30), and the
court noting that failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may
result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488
F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d

1

Carolyn W. Colvin (“Colvin”) was Acting Commissioner of Social Security
when the instant action was filed against her in her official capacity. On January
23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill succeeded Colvin as Acting Commissioner. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted as the
defendant in this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d).

Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should “afford
some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812
F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa.
2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D.
Pa. 2010)), in order to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an
independent review of the record, the court in agreement with Judge Carlson’s
recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the
record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 29) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Shiffka and against
the Commissioner as set forth in the following paragraph.

3.

The Commissioner’s decision is VACATED and this matter is
REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new
administrative hearing, develop the record fully, and evaluate the
evidence appropriately as pertains Shiffka’s separate applications in
accordance with this order and the report (Doc. 29) of Magistrate
Judge Carlson.

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