welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2019
  5. Adams v. Berryhill, 5:18-cv-01909. (2019)

Adams v. Berryhill, 5:18-cv-01909. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20190627d05 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW, this 25 th day of June, 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 2, Defendant's Answer, ECF No. 8, the Administrative Record, ECF No. 7, Plaintiff's Statement of Issues and Brief in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 13, Defendant's Response to Request for Review, ECF No. 14, and the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, ECF No. 16, 1 IT IS ORDERED THAT : 1. The
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 2, Defendant's Answer, ECF No. 8, the Administrative Record, ECF No. 7, Plaintiff's Statement of Issues and Brief in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 13, Defendant's Response to Request for Review, ECF No. 14, and the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, ECF No. 16,1 IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The R&R, ECF No. 16, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Request for Review, ECF No. 13, is DENIED. 3. The final Order of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. 4. This case is CLOSED.

FootNotes


1. 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. 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. 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-cv-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-cv-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). 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).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
5:18-cv-01909.
Counsels
  • JAMES CHRISTOPHER FROELICH
  • ANDREW C. LYNCH
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