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

REBECCA GEEDY, No. 4:20-CV-02264

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER MARCH 10, 2022 Rebecca Geedy filed this action seeking review of a decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Geedy’s claim for social security disability benefits.2 On February 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle 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), Kilolo Kijakazi, as the successor officer to Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, is automatically substituted as Defendant in this action. 2 Docs. 1, 13. 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 Arbuckle’s

conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED;

2. The Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order and Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation;

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 directed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief 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).