Asch v. Saul
Asch v. Saul
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES ASCH, JR., No. 3:21-CV-01163
Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)
v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER JUNE 28, 2022 James Asch, Jr., filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Asch’s claim for social security disability benefits.2 In May 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision and close this case.3 Asch filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, raising several claimed errors in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation.4 “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and
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. 3 Doc. 16. 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 Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s recommendation. Although Asch disputes some of Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s observations and conclusions, Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick correctly determined that, as a whole, the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED; 2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; 3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Asch pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
and
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)). 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
Reference
- Status
- Unknown