Gerald v. Berryhill

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1)Judge Schwabs Report (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;(2) Geralds objections to Judge Schwabs Report (Doc. 14) are OVERRULED;(3) Geralds request for relief is DENIED;(4) The Commissioners decision denying Geralds claim is AFFIRMED; and(5) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. ; adopting 13 Report and Recommendations.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/19/19. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA GERALD

:
Plaintiff

NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-575

:

v.

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

:
:
ORDER

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (“Report”), which recommends that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
plaintiff Lisa Gerald’s (“Gerald”) application for Supplemental Social Security
Income (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be affirmed. (Doc.
13). Gerald has filed objections to the Report (Doc. 14), which the
Commissioner filed a response to on November 1, 2018 (Doc. 15). Based on
the court’s review of the record in this matter, the Report will be adopted in
its entirety; Gerald’s objections will be overruled, and the decision of the
Commissioner will be affirmed.
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to
the extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
For those sections 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.” 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 judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. Local Rule 72.31.
Gerald’s objections to Judge Schwab’s Report (Doc. 14) are a mirror
image of Gerald’s arguments from her brief (Doc. 10), which were individually
addressed at length by Judge Schwab in her Report (Doc. 13). Armed with
an arsenal of evidence from the decision of the administrative law judge
-2-

(Doc. 9-2, at 17-33), Judge Schwab rigorously rejected Gerald’s arguments,
which are now rephrased as objections. Considering Gerald has not raised
any objections, other than those properly addressed by Judge Schwab;
Gerald’s objections (Doc. 14) to Judge Schwab’s Report are overruled.
The court finds that Judge Schwab used proper reasoning and
evidence to support her Report and arrived at a legally sound conclusion. As
such, Judge Schwab’s Report shall be adopted in its entirety as the opinion
of this court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Judge Schwab’s Report (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;
(2) Gerald’s objections to Judge Schwab’s Report (Doc. 14) are
OVERRULED;
(3) Gerald’s request for relief is DENIED;
(4) The Commissioner’s decision denying Gerald’s claim is AFFIRMED;
and
(5) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
s/  Malachy

E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: February 19, 2019
O:\MANNION\SHARED\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-575-01.DOCX

-3-