Adley v. Berryhill

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1)The Report of Judge Saporito (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;(2) The Commissioners decision denying Adley SSI is AFFIRMED.(3) Adleys complaint appealing the final decision of the Commissioner denying his claim for SSI (Doc. 1) is DENIED; and(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.; adopting 16 Report and Recommendations.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/18/19. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN L. ADLEY
Plaintiff

:

NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-398

:

v.

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

:
:
ORDER

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. (“Report”), which recommends that
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying plaintiff Brian L. Adley’s (“Adley”) application for Supplemental
Social Security Income (“SSI”) be affirmed. (Doc. 16). No objections have
been filed to the Report by either party. Upon review of the record in this
matter, the Report will be adopted in its entirety, and the decision of the
Commissioner will be affirmed.
When no objections are made to the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge, 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. L.R. 72.31.
On September 8, 2016, Adley was denied SSI by an administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Adley appeals the
decision, however, arguing that the ALJ erred, abused his discretion, and
that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence. In considering
Adley’s claims, Judge Saporito determined that the ALJ’s evaluation was
supported by substantial evidence. Judge Saporito acknowledged the ALJ
failed to mention several facts regarding Adley’s hip and back pain, but
ultimately held that any error was harmless and did not require remand for
further proceedings. Accordingly, Judge Saporito recommends the decision
of the Commissioner be affirmed and Adley’s application for SSI be denied.

-2-

The court has reviewed the entire Report of Judge Saporito and agrees
with the sound reasoning, which led him to his recommendation. As such,
the court adopts the Report of Judge Saporito as the opinion of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report of Judge Saporito (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY;
(2) The Commissioner’s decision denying Adley SSI is AFFIRMED.
(3) Adley’s complaint appealing the final decision of the Commissioner
denying his claim for SSI (Doc. 1) is DENIED; and
(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/  Malachy

E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: March 18, 2019
O:\MANNION\SHARED\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2018 ORDERS\18-398-01.DOCX

-3-