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

ANGELA ATKINSON, No. 4:22-CV-01922

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MARTIN O’MALLEY,1 Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER JULY 8, 2024 Angela Atkinson filed this action seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Atkinson’s claim for supplemental security benefits.2 On May 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson 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), Martin O’Malley, as the successor officer to Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is automatically substituted as Defendant in this action. 2 Docs. 1, 11. 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 error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge

Carlson’s conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED;

2. The Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order and Magistrate Judge Carlson’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). 5

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.