From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrows v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jul 23, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1383 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 23, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1383

07-23-2018

STEPHEN MARK BARROWS, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 23) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that the court deny the appeal of Stephen Mark Barrows ("Barrows") from the decision of the administrative law judge denying Barrows' application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, and it appearing that Barrows has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court observing that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Mehalchick that the decision of the administrative law judge is "supported by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001), and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 23) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.

2. The decision of the Commissioner denying Barrows' application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits is AFFIRMED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Barrows as set forth in paragraph 2.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Barrows v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jul 23, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1383 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 23, 2018)
Case details for

Barrows v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN MARK BARROWS, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jul 23, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1383 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 23, 2018)

Citing Cases

Peters v. Berryhill

"Statements from a physical therapist are entitled to consideration as additional evidence, but are not…

Lambakis v. Kijakazi

Conversely under these rules which governed Lambakis' case: “Licensed clinical social workers, therapists,…