Keckler v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED IN FULL. 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 3/2/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL GUY KECKLER,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-2462
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)
March 2, 2017
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 December 22, 2015,
and it was assigned jointly 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
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.2 On January 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, to whom
this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that the undersigned affirm the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying Plaintiff social security benefits.
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report and recommendation. 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
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
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
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
Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but instead
adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have conducted a
de novo review and found no error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED IN FULL. January 17,
2017, ECF No. 16. 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
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?