Heider v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REBECCA HEIDER, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-1296

V. : (JUDGE MANNION)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, :

Commissioner

of Social Security, :

Defendant :

ORDER

Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Gerald B.

Cohn, which recommends that the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying the plaintiffs claims for period of disability and disability

insurance benefits under the Social Security Act be affirmed and the

plaintiffs appeal be denied. (Doc. 18). The plaintiff has filed objections to the

report (Doc. 19) to which the Commissioner has responded (Doc. 20). Upon

review, the report of Judge Cohn will be adopted in its entirety.

When 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)).

For 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

(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 72.371.

The plaintiff has raised two arguments in her objections to Judge

Cohn’s report. First, the plaintiff argues that substantial evidence does not

support the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff was capable of performing past

relevant work as a housekeeper. (Doc. 19 at 1-3). Second, the plaintiff

argues that multiple errors with symptom evaluation compel reversal of the

-2-

ALJ’s decision. /d. at 3-4. Both of these arguments were raised in the

plaintiff's brief in support of her appeal (Doc. 15 at 5-8 and 8-10, respectively)

and were addressed thoroughly by Judge Cohn in his report (Doc. 18 at 7-8

and 8-10, respectively). The court has reviewed the evidence of record as a

whole and finds no clear error of record with regard to Judge Cohn’s findings

on either of these issues. Moreover, the court agrees with the sound

reasoning that led Judge Cohn to the conclusions in his report. As such, the

court will adopt the report and recommendation of Judge Cohn as the

decision of the court.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation of Judge

Cohn (Doc. 19) are OVERRULED.

(2) The report and recommendation of Judge Saporito (Doc. 18) is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the ruling of the court.

-3-

(3) The plaintiffs appeal (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

5| Malachy €. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Date: November 23, 2021

20-1296-01

-4-