stating “[i]n an official-capacity action in federal court, death or replacement of the named official will result in automatic substitution of the official's successor in office”
How later courts described this case
- stating “[i]n an official-capacity action in federal court, death or replacement of the named official will result in automatic substitution of the official's successor in office”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMY B.,1
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-02091
v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
FRANK BISIGNANO,2
Defendant.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is a report and recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge
Leo A. Latella recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(hereinafter, “the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Amy B.’s claims for a period of disability
benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act be vacated and remanded. (Doc. 20). 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. 20).
“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
1 Consistent with Judge Latella’s decision to conceal Amy B.’s name in accordance
with the Judicial Conference of the United States’s recommendation to refer to social security
appeal plaintiffs by their first name and last initial, the Court will refer to the Plaintiff as Amy
B. (Doc. 20, at 1 n.1).
2 The Court agrees with Judge Latella’s finding that the previous Commissioner of
Social Security, Martin O’Malley, should be substituted with the current Commissioner of
Social Security, Frank Bisignano. (Doc. 20, at 1 n.2); see Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
166 n.11 (1985) (stating “[i]n an official-capacity action in federal court, death or replacement
of the named official will result in automatic substitution of the official's successor in office”).
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. 20) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY as the opinion of the Court. The decision of the Commissioner is VACTED,
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: February 27, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge
2