IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUDITH P. HOLST, No. 4:18-CV-02182

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ANDREW SAUL,1 Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER OCTOBER 23, 2019 Judith P. Holst filed this action seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Holst’s claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income.2 On September 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision, remand this matter for further proceedings, and close this case.3 No timely objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation.

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Andrew Saul, as the successor officer to Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is automatically substituted as Defendant in this action. 2 Doc. 1. Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.4 Regardless of whether timely

objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.5 Upon review of the record, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s conclusion

that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED;

2. The Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings; 3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of

(g). 4. The Clerk of Court is direct to CLOSE this case. BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed). 5