United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is the report of Chief Magistrate Judge
Susan E. Schwab which recommends that the plaintiff's
appeal of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
be denied and the Commissioner's final decision denying
the plaintiff's claim for benefits be affirmed. (Doc.
11). The plaintiff has filed objections to the report. (Doc.
12). The Commissioner has filed a response to the
plaintiff's objections. (Doc. 13). Upon review of the
record in this matter, the plaintiff's objections will be
OVERRULED, the report and recommendation of Judge Schwab will
be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Clerk of Court will be
directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation
of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de
novo those portions of the report to which objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the
standard is de novo, the extent of review is
committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and
the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate
judge to the extent it deems proper. Rieder v.
Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good
practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee
notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010)
(citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d
Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to
every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether
timely objections are made or not, the district court may
accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act claiming disability based upon certain mental
impairments. The plaintiff's claim was denied upon
initial administrative review and, as a result, the plaintiff
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”). A hearing was conducted at which the
plaintiff was represented by counsel.
considering the evidence of record, the ALJ determined that
the plaintiff had not been disabled within the meaning of the
Act since the date of his application and he therefore denied
the plaintiff's application for benefits. The plaintiff
appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council which
denied his request for review making the ALJ's decision
the final decision of the Commissioner.
plaintiff filed the instant action on January 12, 2018,
arguing that he does not have the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of work
at any exertional level for the durational requirement, the
ALJ failed to give controlling weight to his treating source
opinion and proper weight to the other medical opinions of
record, and the side effects of his medication, singularly or
when combined with his other conditions, preclude him from
engaging in substantial gainful activity. After setting forth
the standard pursuant to which this court is obligated to
consider the plaintiff's claims, Judge Schwab addressed
each of the plaintiff's arguments and determined that the
decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence. As
such, Judge Schwab recommended that the plaintiff's
appeal be denied and the Commissioner's decision be
plaintiff filed objections to Judge Schwab's report. Upon
review, the plaintiff raises the same arguments previously
raised in the brief and reply brief in support of his appeal.
The court finds that Judge Schwab has adequately addressed
each of the plaintiff's arguments in her report. Because
the plaintiff's arguments have previously been raised and
addressed by Judge Schwab and the court agrees with the sound
reasoning that led Judge Schwab to her conclusions, the court
will overrule the plaintiff's objections and adopt Judge
Schwab's report in its entirety as the reasoning of the
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
plaintiff's objections (Doc. 12) are OVERRULED.
report and recommendation of Judge Schwab (Doc. 11), is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS THE RULING OF THE COURT.
plaintiff's appeal is DENIED and the decision of the