Newton v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 17 of Magistrate Judge Carlson, directing Clrk of Ct to enter jdgmt in favor of Newton & against Commissioner as follows in Para 3, vacating Commissioner's decision & remanding matter to Commissioner for admin hearing to develop record & evaluate evidence in acc w/ R&R 17 & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/5/18. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALLAN B. NEWTON,
Plaintiff
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-1887
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2018, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 17) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court
vacate the decision of the administrative law judge denying the application of
plaintiff Allan B. Newton (“Newton”) for a period of disability, disability insurance
benefits, and supplemental security income, and remand this matter for further
proceedings and development of the record, wherein Judge Carlson opines that the
administrative law judge’s decision is not “supported by substantial evidence,” 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), and it appearing that neither Newton nor the Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”) object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2),
and that the Commissioner expressly waives the opportunity to do so, (see Doc. 18),
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 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 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. 17) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Newton 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 in accordance with this order and the report
(Doc. 17) 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