From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodman v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 26, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-151 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-151

02-26-2018

JEFFREY WOODMAN, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2018, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 15) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court deny the appeal of plaintiff Jeffrey Woodman ("Woodman") from the decision of the administrative law judge denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and it appearing that Woodman did not object 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 Carlson 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. 15) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying the application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income of Jeffrey Woodman ("Woodman") is AFFIRMED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Woodman 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

Woodman v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 26, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-151 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Woodman v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY WOODMAN, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-151 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2018)

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Saul

In the same vein, the conservative treatment frequently provided to Wheeler was inconsistent with a claim of…

Ward v. Saul

sparse factual record in the absence of any competent medical opinion evidence which indicates that the…