From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medina v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jul 16, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1941 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 16, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1941

07-16-2018

ANGEL LUIS MEDINA, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant


ORDER

Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, which recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal denied. (Doc. 18). No objections have been filed to Judge Carlson's report and recommendation.

When no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

In his appeal, the plaintiff argues that the administrative law judge's ("ALJ") evaluation of his obesity was legally insufficient. In carefully considering the plaintiff's claims, Judge Carlson found that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is adequately explained in a written decision that conforms to the legal and regulatory guidelines governing Social Security claims. Accordingly, Judge Carlson recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal denied.

The court has reviewed the entire report of Judge Carlson and finds no clear error of record. The court further agrees with the sound reasoning which led Judge Carlson to his recommendation. As such, the court adopts the reasoning of Judge Carlson as the opinion of the court.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 18), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

(2) The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the plaintiff's appeal DENIED.

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

/s/ _________

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge Date: July 16, 2018 O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-1941-01.wpd


Summaries of

Medina v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jul 16, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1941 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 16, 2018)
Case details for

Medina v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:ANGEL LUIS MEDINA, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jul 16, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1941 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 16, 2018)

Citing Cases

Tanner v. Berryhill

Finally, this responsibility is met when the ALJ explicitly considers the claimant's obesity when assessing…

Geiser v. Saul

Finally, this responsibility is met when the ALJ explicitly considers the claimant's obesity when assessing…