Opinion
No. 4:18-CV-01414
04-24-2020
BRIAN LEE HARTMAN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
() (Magistrate Judge Saporito) ORDER
Brian Lee Hartman filed this action seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Hartman's claim for social security disability benefits. Hartman argues, in part, that this matter should be remanded for rehearing before a properly appointed Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). On April 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court vacate the Commissioner's decision because the Administrative Law Judge had not been properly appointed, and remand this matter for further proceedings. No timely objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation.
Doc. 1.
Doc. 11 at 4-5.
Doc. 27.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error. Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Upon review of the record, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge Saporito's conclusion that remand is required based upon the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in Cirko on behalf of Cirko v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 948 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2020). Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. --------
1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED;
2. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings before a different Administrative Law Judge who has been properly appointed in
accordance with the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution;
3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W . Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge