Mann v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
14
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 13 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendant's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/12/15. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
JOHN PAUL MANN,
Plaintiff,
Case no. 1:14-CV-1285 (GTS/TWD)
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF PETER M. MARGOLIUS
Counsel for Plaintiff
7 Howard Street
Catskill, New York 12414
PETER M. MARGOLIUS, ESQ.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
LAUREN E. MYERS, ESQ.
OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this action filed by John Paul Mann (“Plaintiff”) against
the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking
Social Security disability insurance benefits and Social Security income benefits, is the ReportRecommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, issued pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 72.3(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for this
Court, recommending that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security disability
insurance benefits or Social Security income benefits be reversed and that this matter be
remanded to Defendant. (Dkt. No. 13.) The parties have filed no Objection to the Report-
Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation
is accepted and adopted in its entirety, Defendant’s decision is reversed, and this matter is
remanded to Defendant.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s decision is REVERSED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order.
Dated: November 12, 2015
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief, United States District Judge
1
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that reportrecommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983
Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v.
Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted
to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as
those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?