From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anstey v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 24, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1219 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1219

04-24-2018

DEBORAH L. ANSTEY, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2018, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 13) of Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, recommending that the court vacate the decision of the administrative law judge denying the application of plaintiff Deborah L. Anstey ("Anstey") for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income and remand this matter for further proceedings, 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 Anstey 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. 14), 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. 13) of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED.

2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Anstey 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. 13) 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

Anstey v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 24, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1219 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2018)
Case details for

Anstey v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH L. ANSTEY, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1219 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2018)