From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aurand v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 17, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-959 (M.D. Pa. May. 17, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-959

05-17-2018

JASMINE ANGELA AURAND, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court deny the appeal of plaintiff Jasmine Angela Aurand ("Aurand") from the decision of the administrative law judge denying Aurand's application for disability insurance benefits, and it appearing that Aurand did not object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court observing that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson that the decision of the administrative law judge is "supported by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001), and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2. The decision of the Commissioner denying Aurand's application for disability insurance benefits is AFFIRMED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Aurand as set forth in paragraph 2.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Aurand v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 17, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-959 (M.D. Pa. May. 17, 2018)
Case details for

Aurand v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:JASMINE ANGELA AURAND, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 17, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-959 (M.D. Pa. May. 17, 2018)

Citing Cases

Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

The ALJ did not err in categorizing his medication regimen, from which he was trying to slowly reduce, as…