GONZALEZ GONZALEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ RICHARD GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 2:24-cv-2296-JFL : LELAND DUDEK,1 : Acting Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant. : __________________________________________ O R D E R AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2025, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint, see ECF No. 1; Plaintiff’s Brief and Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Review, see ECF No. 11; Defendant’s Contested Motion to Remand, see ECF No. 14; Plaintiff’s Response thereto, see ECF No. 15; the administrative record, see ECF Nos. 9 & 10; and after review2 of the Report and Recommendation of Pamela Carlos, United States Magistrate Judge, see ECF No. 18, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 Leland Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 16, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Leland Dudek should be substituted as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). 2 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (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, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 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, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168 , at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991); see also Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (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 “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations” contained in the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 1. The Report and Recommendation, see ECF No. 18, is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Defendant’s Contested Motion to Remand, see ECF No. 14, is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff’s request for review, see ECF No. 11, is GRANTED; 4. The Decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration solely for the calculation and payment of benefits for the disputed timeframe within sixty (60) days of entry of this Order. 5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge