Craft v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DALE CRAFT, :

O/B/O NATALIE D. CRAFT,

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-658

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, :

Commissioner

of Social Security, :

Defendant :

O R D E R

Pending before the court is the November 19, 2021 report of

Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn, which recommends that the decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security denying the plaintiff’s claims for a period

of disability, supplemental security income under Title XVI, and disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act be affirmed and

the plaintiff’s appeal be denied. (Doc. 25). The plaintiff has filed objections to

the report, (Doc. 26), to which the Commissioner has not responded.1

1 Normally the Commissioner would either file a response or a letter

indicating that no response will be forthcoming. The court believes that is a

better practice than merely not responding.

Regardless, 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 72.31.

The plaintiff Dale Craft, on behalf of Natalie Dawn Craft, deceased

claimant, seeks judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration’s final decision finding that claimant was not disabled.

The plaintiff has raised one argument in her objections to Judge Cohn’s

report. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that substantial evidence does not

support the ALJ’s finding regarding the weight he afforded to the medical

opinions pertaining to claimant’s mental limitations from her depressive and

anxiety disorders. The plaintiff contends that the ALJ cited to the entirety of

the record to support his findings and, that ALJ failed to adequately explain

conflicts in the opinions found in the record and failed to adequately explain

why some opinions were rejected. No doubt that this argument was raised in

the plaintiff’s brief in support of her appeal and it was addressed thoroughly

and in great detail by Judge Cohn in his report. (Doc. 25 at 5-14).

Nonetheless, 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 the

stated issue. 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. 26), are OVERRULED.

(2) The report and recommendation of Judge Cohn, (Doc. 25), is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, as the ruling of the court.

(3) The plaintiff’s appeal, (Doc. 1), of the Commissioner’s final decision

is DENIED.

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

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Date: January 6, 2022

20-658-01