Bazewicz v. Berryhill
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 23 Motion to Lift Stay is granted; 16 Magistrate Judge Saporito's Report and Recommendation is adoplted; the Commissioners decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings; final Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 4/27/2020. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 4:18-CV-00363
MARLENE A. BAZEWICZ,
(Judge Brann)
Plaintiff,
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)
v.
ANDREW SAUL,1
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER
APRIL 27, 2020
Marlene A. Bazewicz filed this action seeking review of a decision by the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Bazewicz’s claim for
supplemental security income.2 Bazewicz argues, in part, that this matter should be
remanded for rehearing before a properly appointed Administrative Law Judge pursuant
to Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018).3 In March 2019, Magistrate Judge Joseph
F. Saporito, Jr., issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court
vacate the Commissioner’s decision because the Administrative Law Judge had not
been properly appointed, and remand this matter for further proceedings.4
The
Government filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that
1
2
3
4
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Andrew Saul, as the successor officer to
Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is automatically substituted as
Defendant in this action.
Doc. 1.
Doc. 13 at 1-2.
Doc. 16.
Bazewicz’s Lucia claim should not be considered because she failed to exhaust the issue
in her administrative proceedings.5
This Court thereafter stayed the matter pending resolution of two appeals before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in which that court was
expected to address the question of whether district courts may consider Lucia claims
that were not first raised in administrative proceedings.6 That opinion has now issued,
and the Third Circuit in Cirko on behalf of Cirko v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 948 F.3d 148
(3d Cir. 2020), determined that plaintiffs need not exhaust Lucia claims during their
administrative proceedings.7 Bazewicz has now filed a motion to lift this Court’s stay.8
“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”9
Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or
modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.10
Upon de novo review of the record, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge
Saporito’s conclusion that remand is required based upon the Supreme Court’s decision
5
6
7
8
9
10
Doc. 19.
Doc. 21.
Id. at 152.
Doc. 23.
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
2
in Lucia and, in light of the Third Circuit’s decision in Cirko, finds no merit in the
Government’s objections. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Bazewicz’s motion to lift the stay (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and the stay
is hereby LIFTED;
2.
Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 16) is ADOPTED;
3.
The Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and this matter is
REMANDED for further proceedings before a different Administrative
Law Judge who has been properly appointed in accordance with the
Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution;
4.
Final Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
and
5.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
3
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?