Geldreich v. Berryhill
Geldreich v. Berryhill
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EVELYN L. GELDREICH, No. 4:18-CV-01752
Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)
v. (Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)
ANDREW SAUL,1 Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER APRIL 3, 2020 Evelyn L. Geldreich filed this action seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Geldreich’s claim for social security disability benefits.2 In January 2020, Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision and close this case.3 Geldreich filed timely objections to the recommendation, asserting that Magistrate Judge Mehalchick erred in recommending that the administrative law judge properly: (1) assigned only partial weight to Geldreich’s treating physician; (2) determined that the evidence failed to established any mental impairments prior to Geldreich’s date last insured; and (3) discounted Geldreich’s testimony regarding her
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 Docs. 1, 9. functional limitations.4 “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”5 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts
may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.6 Upon de novo review of the record, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s recommendation. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED; 2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; 3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and 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 Doc. 16. 5 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch,
866 F.3d 93, 99(3d Cir. 2017) (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 6
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Reference
- Status
- Unknown