Peters v. Colvin

Full title: TERESA PETERS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 8, 2016

No. 2:15-cv-04750 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 8, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-04750

09-08-2016

TERESA PETERS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant.

JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8^th day of September, 2016, upon consideration of the Complaint, Answer, Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, Defendant's Response to Request for Review of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's reply thereto, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter¹ and the complete record in this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1 No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is ADOPTED and APPROVED;²

2 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). "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 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). --------

2. 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 Thomas J. Rueter's Report and Recommendation;

3. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, reversing the decision of the Commissioner for the purpose of this remand only; and

4. This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F . Leeson, Jr.

JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.

United States District Judge