Manny v. Astrue

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting 15 Report and Recommendation; the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against the Plaintiff; the Clerk is further directed to close the case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/1/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TENA MARIE MANNY,

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN1,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-0615

(Judge Brann)

(Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
December 1, 2016

On August 23, 2016, Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom
this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that the undersigned affirm the decision of the Commission of
Social Security denying Plaintiff social security benefits. Plaintiff did not file
objections to the report and recommendation, and the time within which to do so

1

As the term of named defendant, Michael J. Astrue, ended January 19,
2013, the clerk is directed to change the named defendant to current acting
Commissioner, Carolyn Colvin.
1

has since passed.
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."2 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.3 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.4
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.5
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."6

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
6

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)).
2

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.7
Despite the lack of objections by the Plaintiff, the Court has reviewed the
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and is satisfied that there is no
clear error in its face. It is well-written and scrupulously details the substantial
evidence that supports the Commissioner’s decision.
The report and recommendation of the chief magistrate judge is ADOPTED
IN FULL. ECF No. 15. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The
Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against the
Plaintiff. The Clerk is further directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

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

7

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
3