Opinion
No. 2:16-cv-06486
01-30-2018
DELIS ARIAS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 3; Defendant's Answer, ECF No. 8; the Social Security Administrative Record, ECF No. 7; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Review, ECF No. 12; Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 13; Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, ECF No. 14; Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Brief and Statement, ECF No. 17; and the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Lynne A. Sitarski, United States Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 20, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
When neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). "When no objections are filed, the district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice." Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that even when objections are filed, district courts "are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge's recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)"); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). --------
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff requests a remand.
3. Plaintiff's Request for Review is GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED to the extent that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski's Report and Recommendation.
4. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff, reversing the decision of the Commissioner for the purpose of this remand only.
5. This case is CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F . Leeson, Jr.
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge