From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wheeler v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 27, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-1916 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-1916

03-27-2018

ALBERT EDWARD WHEELER, III, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2018, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, recommending that the court vacate the decision of the administrative law judge denying the application of plaintiff Albert Edward Wheeler, III ("Wheeler"), for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, and remand this matter for further proceedings in accordance with sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), wherein Judge Schwab opines that the administrative law judge's decision is not "supported by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and it appearing that neither Wheeler nor the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and that the Commissioner has expressly waived the opportunity to do so, (see Doc. 15), and the court noting that failure 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 review of the record, the court in agreement with Judge Schwab's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED.

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

3. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new administrative hearing, develop the record fully, and evaluate the evidence appropriately in accordance with this order and the report (Doc. 14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab.

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

Wheeler v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 27, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-1916 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)
Case details for

Wheeler v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT EDWARD WHEELER, III, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-1916 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Saul

In March of 2018, this court remanded Wheeler's case for further consideration by the Commissioner, finding…

Leo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Even assuming this limitation was made in deference to Plaintiff, it still needed to be based on substantial…