Yost v. Colvin et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 9/29/17. (ep)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PEARCE BREWINGTON YOST,
Plaintiff
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 3:16-CV-1444
(Judge Nealon)
(Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)
MEMORANDUM
Background
On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff, Pearce Brewington Yost, filed a complaint
seeking review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s
(“Commissioner”) denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act and his application for Supplemental Security
Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). On September 14,
2016, Defendant filed an Answer and Transcript. (Docs. 10 and 11). On October
31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of the complaint. (Doc. 12). On
December 1, 2016, Defendant filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. 13). A Report and
Nancy A. Berryhill became the new Acting Commissioner of Social
Security on January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner
Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be
taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
1
Recommendation, (“R&R”), was issued by United States Magistrate Judge
William I. Arbuckle on September 15, 2017, recommending that the appeal be
denied, the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, final judgment be entered
in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and the Clerk of Court be directed to
close this matter. (Doc. 16). No objections have been filed, and the matter is now
ripe for review. Having reviewed the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge, the R&R
will be adopted.
Standard of Review
When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report,
under de novo or any other standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Nevertheless, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that it is better practice 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), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987); Garcia v. I.N.S., 733 F. Supp. 1554, 1555
(M.D. Pa. 1990) (Kosik, J.) (stating “the district court need only review the record
for plain error or manifest injustice”). In the absence of objections, review may
properly be limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error that not only affects
the rights of the plaintiff, but also seriously affects the integrity, fairness, or public
2
reputation of judicial proceedings. Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 377 (M.D.
Pa. 1998) (Vanaskie, J.).
Discussion
Upon review of the present appeal, it is concluded that the Magistrate Judge
did not err in finding that substantial evidence supports the decision of the
administrative law judge, (“ALJ”), that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Doc. 16). The
Magistrate Judge appropriately sets forth the standard for reviewing a Social
Security appeal and the Sequential Evaluation Process used by an administrative
law judge to determine whether the claimant is disabled, which are herein adopted
as such. (Id. at pp. 7-14). The Magistrate Judge also thoroughly reviews the
medical records and the ALJ’s decision, also herein adopted as such. (Id. at pp. 17, 15-16). Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle determines that the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and recommends that this Court
deny the appeal, affirm the ALJ’s decision, and enter judgment in favor of
Defendant and against Plaintiff. (Id. at pp. 17-27).
Neither party having objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations,
and this Court having reviewed the R&R for clear error and having found none,
Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s R&R will be adopted. As such, Plaintiff’s appeal
will be denied, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed, judgment will
3
be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and the Clerk of Court will
be directed to close this matter.
A separate Order will be issued.
Date: September 30, 2017
/s/ William J. Nealon
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?