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

LENA KATZENMOYER, : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 22-580 Plaintiff, : : v. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : : Defendant. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2022, upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the record, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (ECF No. 15), there being no objections,1 it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

1 When neither party files timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) on a dispositive issue, the district court is not required to review the R&R before adopting it. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). However, the Third Circuit has held that “in the absence of objections . . . the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72, 1983 advisory committee notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). In that neither party has filed objections to the R&R, this Court has reviewed it for clear error and has found none. ADOPTED ; 2. Plaintiff’s Request for Review (ECF No. 11) is DENIED; and 3. The Clerk of Court shall remove this case from suspense and mark the case as CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.