ELIJAH v. COLVIN, 13-5509. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20140527f48
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 22, 2014
Latest Update: May 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. AND NOW , this 22nd day of May, 2014, upon careful and independent consideration of the parties' briefs (ECF Nos. 10, 13, 14) and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart (ECF No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED ; 1 2. Plaintiff's Request for Review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as outlined in the Report and Recommendation; and 3. The m
Summary: ORDER EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. AND NOW , this 22nd day of May, 2014, upon careful and independent consideration of the parties' briefs (ECF Nos. 10, 13, 14) and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart (ECF No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED ; 1 2. Plaintiff's Request for Review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as outlined in the Report and Recommendation; and 3. The ma..
More
ORDER
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2014, upon careful and independent consideration of the parties' briefs (ECF Nos. 10, 13, 14) and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart (ECF No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1
2. Plaintiff's Request for Review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as outlined in the Report and Recommendation; and
3. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for consideration of Plaintiff's mental illness as a severe impairment, and for the posing of a hypothetical question to a vocational expert that includes Plaintiff's mental limitations.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court undertakes a de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D'Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir. 1998). The 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). In this instance, neither party submitted objections to Magistrate Judge Hart's Report and Recommendation.
Source: Leagle
