Case Information
*1 Case 1:24-cv-01251-KM Document 20 Filed 08/28/25 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PRISCILLA WINTERS,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-01251 v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.) FRANK BISIGNANO,
Defendant.
ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella (“the Report”) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter, “the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Priscilla Lynn Winters’ claims for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act be vacated and remanded. (Doc. 19). No objections have been timely filed to the Report. Having reviewed the reasoning of the Report and relevant law, the Court will ADOPT it in its entirety. (Doc. 19).
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v. Astrue , 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen days of being served a Report and Recommendation, “any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark , 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. § *2 Case 1:24-cv-01251-KM Document 20 Filed 08/28/25 Page 2 of 2 636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo , the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v. Gartley , No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v. Raddatz , 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
The Court agrees with the Report’s sound reasoning and discerns no error of law. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT t he Report (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the opinion of the Court. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner to fully develop the record, conduct a new administrative hearing, and appropriately evaluate the evidence. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. s/ Karoline Mehalchick
Dated: August 28, 2025 KAROLINE MEHALCHICK United States District Judge 2