Zenzel v. Astrue

Filing 22

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendations: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion (Dkt. No. 16) for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, that Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. No. 13) for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, andthat this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon the parties to this action. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 9/10/12. (ban)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NANCY ZENZEL,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:11-CV-00259 (LEK/VEB)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendants.

DECISION and ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 23,
2012 by the Honorable Victor E. Bianchini, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(d). Dkt. No. 18 (“ReportRecommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c). “If no objections are filed . .
. reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” Edwards v. Fischer,
414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citations omitted).
Here, no objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Magistrate Judge
Bianchini’s Report-Recommendation. See generally Dkt. Defendant requested an extension of time
to file objections to the Report-Recommendation, which was granted. Dkt. No. 20 (and
accompanying Text Order). However, Defendant failed to file objections during this extension. See
generally Dkt. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court

has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest
injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. No. 16) for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 13) for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, and
that this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon the
parties to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

September 10, 2012
Albany, New York

2