welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2019
  5. Hudson v. Saul, 2:18-cv-02653. (2019)

Hudson v. Saul, 2:18-cv-02653. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20191021b56 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW, this 18 th day of October, 2019, upon consideration 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 2; Defendant's Answer, ECF No. 6; the Administrative Record, ECF No. 7; Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 10; Defendant's Response to Request for Review, ECF No. 11; Plaintiff's Reply, ECF No. 14; and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, ECF No. 16, I
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2019, upon consideration2 of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 2; Defendant's Answer, ECF No. 6; the Administrative Record, ECF No. 7; Plaintiff's Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 10; Defendant's Response to Request for Review, ECF No. 11; Plaintiff's Reply, ECF No. 14; and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, ECF No. 16, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16, is APPROVED and ADOPTED.3

2. Plaintiff's Request for Review, ECF No. 10, 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 the Report and Recommendation.

3. Andrew M. Saul is SUBSTITUTED for Nancy A. Berryhill as the defendant in this case.

4. This case is CLOSED.

FootNotes


1. On June 4, 2019, Andrew M. Saul became the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Andrew M. Saul shall be substituted as the defendant in this case.
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. See 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. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (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 Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that even when objections are filed, district courts "are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge's recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)"); 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). "A `plain' error is one that is `clear' or `obvious.'" Gov't of the V.I. v. Lewis, 620 F.3d 359, 364 (3d Cir. 2010). 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).
3. The Court does not find any plain error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed factual findings or legal conclusions.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:18-cv-02653.
Counsels
  • THOMAS D. SUTTON
  • ANDREW C. LYNCH
  • ELIZABETH ANN CORRITORE
Similar Cases

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