# Winters v. Bisignano

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · August 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11129420

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11129420

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PRISCILLA WINTERS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-01251

v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
FRANK BISIGNANO,

Defendant.

ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge
Leo A. Latella (“the Report”) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (hereinafter, “the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Priscilla Lynn Winters’ claims
for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act be vacated
and remanded. (Doc. 19). No objections have been timely filed to the Report. Having
reviewed the reasoning of the Report and relevant law, the Court will ADOPT it in its
entirety. (Doc. 19).
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a Report and Recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de
novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “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.” Rahman v.

Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
The Court agrees with the Report’s sound reasoning and discerns no error of law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED IN
ITS ENTIRETY as the opinion of the Court. The decision of the Commissioner is
VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner to fully develop the
record, conduct a new administrative hearing, and appropriately evaluate the evidence. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.

Dated: August 28, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11129420. Public record. Not legal advice.