Weaver v. Berryhill

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.16) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the Plaintif fs applications for disability insurance under the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of the Commissioner. 4.The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case. See Order for further details.Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 3/12/19. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON ELWOOD WEAVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

1:18-cv-61

Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson

ORDER
March 12, 2019
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 16), recommending that
we affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the
Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security
Act, and noting that the Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 17) to the report to which
the Commissioner has responded (Doc. 18),1 and the Court finding Judge Carlson’s
analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the
Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the court must
perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinksi v. United Parcel Serv.,
Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks,
885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule
of Court 72.3 requires ‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those
objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D.
Pa. Sept. 8, 2008).
1

1

Court further finding Plaintiffs’ objections2 to be without merit IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.16)
is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the
Plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance under the Social Security
Act is AFFIRMED.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of the
Commissioner.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

Plaintiff’s submission contains no arguments that cause us to depart from the Magistrate
Judge’s appropriate reasoning and correct conclusions. Here, the ALJ’s decision to deny
Plaintiff’s application for benefits is supported by substantial evidence that the Plaintiff could
perform a limited range of light work. The arguments raised in the Plaintiff’s objections have
been, as pointed out by the Commissioner, previously raised and were considered by the
Magistrate Judge in his thorough report and recommendation.

2

2