UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________

NEIL ANGELO SCUDERI, : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 2:23-cv-2551 : FRANK BISIGNANO, : Acting Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant. : _____________________________________

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2025, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1; Defendant’s Answer and the Administrative Record, ECF No. 9; Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 10; Plaintiff’s Amended Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, ECF No. 11; Defendant’s Response to Request for Review, ECF No. 12; Plaintiff’s Reply, ECF No. 15; the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw, ECF No. 19; and in the absence of objections;1 IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1 When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard.

(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson,

, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied

(1987). “When no objections are filed, the district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272,

, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815,

, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that even when objections are filed, district courts “are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under

(b)”); Oldrati v. Apfel,

(E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1)(C). 1 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The final decision of the Commissioner denying benefits prior to April 1, 2022, is hereby VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the

R&R. 3. This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

2