From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Catizone v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 17, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1209 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 17, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1209

09-17-2018

DOROTHY CATIZONE, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 8) of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, recommending that the court deny the appeal of Dorothy Catizone ("Catizone") from the decision of the administrative law judge denying Catizone's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, and it appearing that Catizone 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 Arbuckle 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. 8) of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle is ADOPTED.

2. The decision of the Commissioner denying Catizone's 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 Catizone 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

Catizone v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 17, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1209 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 17, 2018)
Case details for

Catizone v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY CATIZONE, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant

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

Date published: Sep 17, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1209 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 17, 2018)