Moore v. Berryhill

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections f or clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. This case shall be remanded to the ALJ to develop and clarify his decision as set forth in the R&R. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/22/2019. (Coleman, Laurie)

FILED 
CLERK 

3:31 pm, Mar 22, 2019

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
CHRISTA A. MOORE,

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION & ORDER
2:17-cv-01361 (ADS)(ARL)

Plaintiff,
-againstNANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:

Law Office Charles E. Binder and Harry J. Binder
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
485 Madison Ave. Suite 501
New York, NY 10022
By:
Charles E. Binder, Esq., Of Counsel.
Social Security Administration
United States Attorney’s Office
610 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722
By:
Sean P. Greene, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney,
SPATT, District Judge:
On March 10, 2017, plaintiff Christa Moore (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action
pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision
of defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (the “Commissioner” or the “Defendant”), the acting
commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) at the time of filing, which denied
her application for disability insurance benefits.
On January 2, 2018, the parties cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings.

1

On September 26, 2018, the Court referred the cross-motions to United States Magistrate
Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, for a recommendation as to whether the cross motions for judgment on
the pleadings for either party should be granted, and if so, what relief should be ordered.
On March 7, 2019, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the
Court deny the parties motions and remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent
with the R&R. Specifically, Judge Lindsay found that remand was warranted because the ALJ
failed to provide good reasons for declining to assign controlling weight to the treating physicians’
opinions and to adequately develop the medical record to clarify ambiguities and/or
inconsistencies. Judge Lindsay electronically served a copy of the R&R on all parties the same
day.
It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not
filed objections.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court
has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its
result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error).
Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. This case shall be remanded to the ALJ to
develop and clarify his decision as set forth in the R&R. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
directed to close this case.

2

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 22, 2019
___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_______
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

3