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

LINDSEY MESZAROS, No. 4:19-CV-01809

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Cohn)

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER APRIL 13, 2021 Lindsey Meszaros filed this action seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Meszaros’ claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income benefits.1 In March 2021, Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision and close this case.2 Meszaros filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.3 In her objections, Meszaros contends that Magistrate Judge Cohn erred in: (1) concluding that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly afforded greater weight to a non- examining psychologist than to Meszaros’ treating physician; (2) relying on

1 Doc. 1. 2 Doc. 19. Meszaros’ activities of daily living; (3) suggesting that Meszaros’ part-time work was probative of her ability to work full-time; (4) determining that the ALJ properly

found Meszaros to have fewer limitations than did the non-examining psychologist whose opinion the ALJ afforded great weight; (5) failing to properly account for exacerbations of Meszaros’ symptoms and her inability to accurately assess her own

mood and behavior; and (6) concluding that Meszaros’ past performance at work was indicative of her current ability to work.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 Cohn’s conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Although Meszaros disputes some of Magistrate Judge Cohn’s

observations and conclusions, Magistrate Judge Cohn correctly determined that, as

4 Id. 5 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch,

(3d Cir. 2017) (quoting

(b)(1)). 6

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. a whole, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED; 2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED;

3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Meszaros pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of

(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