Deiter v. Colvin

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's 27 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full; the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED; Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff; and the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 3/14/2018. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID EDWARD DEITER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No.: 3:16-CV-2146
(Judge Brann)

Defendant.
ORDER
MARCH 14, 2018
This matter is an action for social security benefits which have been denied
by both the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and, before that, by an
administrative law judge. Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 24, 2016 and
it was jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge.
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of
fact and recommendations.”1 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.2 On February 5, 2018, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom
this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
1

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).

2

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

recommending that I affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying Plaintiff social security benefits.
Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on February 20,
2018. When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de novo
review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.3 Although the
standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the
discretion of the District Court, and the Court may otherwise rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.4 For
portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the
Court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”5 Regardless of
whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not
accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.6

3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).

4

Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir.1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will
instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have
conducted a de novo review and found no error. Plaintiffs objections here are
merely restatements of her prior arguments that have been previously addressed by
the magistrate judge.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s February 5, 2018 Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 27, is ADOPTED in full.
2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge