IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MINA MENKES, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 2005-CV-02092

 )

vs. )

 )

JOANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner, )

 )

Defendant )

O R D E R

NOW, this 9th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, which motions were filed May 1,

2006; upon consideration of Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion and in Support of Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, which brief and motion were filed on June 5,

2006; upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa filed 

August 31, 2006; upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Objections to

the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which

objections were filed September 8, 2006; upon consideration of

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections of Defendant to

the Report and Recommendation, which response was filed 

February 28, 2007; upon consideration of plaintiff’s Complaint,

defendant’s Answer and after a through review of the record in

Case 2:05-cv-02092-JKG Document 19 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 3
1

The only new issue that plaintiff raises in her objections that is

not a restatement of the issues raised in her original motion for summary

judgment is plaintiff’s attempt to include new evidence about a later

application for benefits that took into consideration impairments

(specifically, somatoform and personality disorder) that were not before the

Administrative Law Judge in this matter. As correctly noted by defendant in

response to plaintiff’s objections, the court cannot consider this new

evidence as part of our review of the within matter. See Matthews v. Apfel,

239 F.3d 589, 594 (3d Cir. 2001). Accordingly, based upon Matthews, we 

decline to consider the new evidence advanced by plaintiff in her objections. 

2

The extent of review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation is committed to the discretion of the district court. 

Jozefick v. Shalala, 854 F.Supp. 342, 347 (M.D.Pa. 1994). However, the

district court must review de novo those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The

court may “accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate’s

findings or recommendations.” Brophy v. Halter, 153 F.Supp.2d 667, 669

(E.D.Pa. 2001); Rule 72.1(IV)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, district judges have wide latitude regarding how they

treat recommendations of the magistrate judge. See United States v. Raddatz,

447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980). Indeed, by providing

for a de novo determination, rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended

to permit a district judge, in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion,

the option of placing whatever reliance the court chooses to place on the

magistrate judge’s proposed findings and conclusions. We may accept, reject

or modify, in whole or in part any of the findings or recommendations made by

the magistrate judge. Raddatz, supra.

-2-

this matter; it appearing that plaintiff’s objections1 to

Magistrate Judge Caracappa’s Report and Recommendation are

essentially a restatement of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Plaintiff’s

Motion for Remand and are without merit; it further appearing

after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate Judge

Caracappa’s Report and Recommendation correctly determined the

legal and factual issues presented, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Caracappa’s Report

and Recommendation is approved and adopted.2

Case 2:05-cv-02092-JKG Document 19 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 3
3

As noted above, except as discussed in footnote 1, we conclude

that plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Caracappa’s Report and

Recommendation are nothing more than a restatement of the underlying claims

contained in her motion for summary judgment. Moreover, upon review of the

Report and Recommendation, together with de novo review of the entire record

in this matter, we conclude that the Report and Recommendation correctly

determines the legal and factual issues raised by plaintiff.

Accordingly, we approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Caracappa’s

Report and Recommendation and overrule plaintiff’s objections to the Report

and Recommendation.

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s alternate motion

for remand is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to

the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Caracappa are

overruled.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor

of defendant and against plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

close this civil action for statistical purposes. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02092-JKG Document 19 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 3