The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARIE VALENTIN ROLDAN,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-01449
v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Defendant.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is a report and recommendation filed by Chief Magistrate
Judge Daryl F. Bloom recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (hereinafter, “the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Marie Valentin Roldan’s claims
for disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act be vacated
and remanded. (Doc. 15). Judge Bloom informed the parties that they had fourteen days to
file a timely objection to the report. (Doc. 15, at 31). No party filed a timely objection. Having
reviewed the reasoning of the report and relevant law, the Court will ADOPT it in its entirety.
(Doc. 15).
“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 Judge Bloom’s report (Doc. 15) 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: May 29, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge
2