welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2016
  5. Saunders v. Colvin, 14-4985. (2016)

Saunders v. Colvin, 14-4985. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20160331948 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER EDWARD G. SMITH , District Judge . AND NOW, this 29 th day of March, 2016, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 3), the answer (Doc. No. 7), and the administrative record (Doc. No. 8); and after considering the report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin (Doc. No. 16); and after reviewing the plaintiff's brief and statement of issues in support of the request for review (Doc. No. 9), the defendant's response to the request for review (Doc.
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2016, after considering the complaint (Doc. No. 3), the answer (Doc. No. 7), and the administrative record (Doc. No. 8); and after considering the report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin (Doc. No. 16); and after reviewing the plaintiff's brief and statement of issues in support of the request for review (Doc. No. 9), the defendant's response to the request for review (Doc. No. 12), and the plaintiff's reply brief (Doc. No. 14); and no party having filed objections to the report and recommendation; accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to return this matter to the court's active docket;

2. The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1

3. The plaintiff's request for review is GRANTED insofar as she requests that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and remanded for further proceedings;

4. The final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation; and

5. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.

FootNotes


1. Since neither party has filed objections to Judge Perkin's report and recommendation, the court need not review the report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, "the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Id. As such, the court will review the report for plain error. See Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F.Supp.2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) ("In the absence of a timely objection, . . . this Court will review [the magistrate judge's] Report and Recommendation for clear error." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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)(C). The court has reviewed Judge Perkin's report for plain error and has found none.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
14-4985.
Counsels
  • MICHAEL PATRICK BOYLE
  • ANDREW C. LYNCH
  • MICHELLE SCOTESE
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