Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Christman v. Berryhill, 18-2434. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20190225b67 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER NITZA I. QUI ONES ALEJANDRO , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21 st day of February 2019, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") issued on January 29, 2019, by the Honorable Marilyn Heffley, United States Magistrate Judge ("the Magistrate Judge"), [ECF 15], and after an independent review of the record, this Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the findings of fact and conclusions of law, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of February 2019, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") issued on January 29, 2019, by the Honorable Marilyn Heffley, United States Magistrate Judge ("the Magistrate Judge"), [ECF 15], and after an independent review of the record, this Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the findings of fact and conclusions of law, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter, are supported by substantial evidence.1 Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The R&R is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Request for Review is DENIED. 3. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

FootNotes


1. Neither Plaintiff nor the Acting Commissioner filed any objection and/or response to the R&R. In the absence of any objections, this Court reviewed the R&R under the "plain error" standard. See Facyson v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 22436274, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003). Under this plain error standard of review, an R&R should only be rejected if the magistrate judge commits an error that was "(1) clear or obvious, (2) affect[ed] `substantial rights,' and (3) seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Leyva v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, after a thorough review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds no error and, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer