The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS
On May 9, 2008, Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt ("Magistrate Judge Blewitt" or "the Magistrate Judge") filed a Report and Recommendation ("Report") reviewing the appeal of the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff Henry A. Maneval's ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), which was filed under Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. (Rec. Doc. 15). Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommended that the appeal be denied.
Objections to the Report were due by May 27, 2008, and to date, none have been filed. Thus, this matter is ripe for our disposition.
Plaintiff filed the instant application for DIB on October 28, 2003, alleging disability since August 19, 2003. In his application, Plaintiff attributes his alleged disability to a heart condition, diabetes mellitus, asthma, and allergies. His claim was denied initially, prompting Plaintiff to timely file a request for hearing.
Said request was granted, and on July 19, 2005, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), during which Plaintiff and vocational expert Andrew Caporale ("VE" or "VE Caporale") testified. On August 15, 2005, the ALJ issued a decision awarding Plaintiff DIB as of June 4, 2005, but not prior thereto.
Plaintiff subsequently requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council, which was denied on March 16, 2007, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff then appealed the Commissioner's final decision by filing, pro se, his Complaint with this Court on May 16, 2007. (Rec. Doc. 1). Therein, Plaintiff indicates that he "firmly believe[s] that the decision of the Law Judges and Council is flawed . . . ," and he appears to seek a reversal of that portion of the decision which was unfavorable to him. See id. at 1.
A. Review of Magistrate Judge's Report
When no objections are made to a magistrate's report, the district court is not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge's report before accepting it. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the Third Circuit, however, "the better practice is 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). ...