Moon v. Berryhill

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 13 Report and Recommendation is adopted in full; decision of the Commissioner is affirmed; final judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff; Clerk directed to close the case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 1/10/19. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TAMICA MOON,

No. 4:18-CV-00323

Plaintiff,

(Judge Brann)

v.
NANCY BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

(Magistrate Judge Saporito)

ORDER
JANUARY 10, 2019
This matter is an action for social security benefits which have been denied
by both the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and prior to that, by an
administrative law judge. Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 8, 2018, 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

1

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

2

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

On December 19, 2018, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., to whom
this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
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 January 2,
2019. 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 that 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.

-2-

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 here and found no error. Plaintiff’s objections here
are merely restatements of her prior arguments that have been previously addressed
by the magistrate judge. Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the position taken
by Plaintiff, and find that the decision of the administrative law judge was
supported by substantial evidence
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s December 19, 2018 Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is ADOPTED in full.
2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
4. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

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

-3-