Opinion
3:20-CV-01725
03-03-2022
ALICIA MARIE STILTNER, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, [1]Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Saporito Magistrate Judge
ORDER
MATTHEW W. BRANN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Alicia Marie Stiltner filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Stiltner's claim for social security disability benefits. In December 2021, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner's decision and close this case.
Doc. 1.
Doc. 20.
Stiltner filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. In her objections, Stiltner contends that Magistrate Judge Saporito erred in concluding that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinion evidence. “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'” Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify- in whole or in part-the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Doc. 21.
Id.
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Upon de novo review of the record, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Saporito's conclusion that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Although Stiltner disputes some of Magistrate Judge Saporito's observations and conclusions, Magistrate Judge Saporito correctly determined that, as a whole, the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED;
2. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED;
3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Stiltner 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.