Teekasingh v. Colvin
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 29 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part, to the extent that it seeks remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g); the Commissioner's determination is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the specific instructions outlined in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 10/9/15. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security
Lachman, Gorton Law Firm
Counsel for Plaintiff
1500 East Main Street
Endicott, NY 13761-0089
PETER A. GORDON, ESQ.
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
BENIL ABRAHAM, ESQ.
JOANNE JACKSON PENGELLY, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Sanita Teekasingh
(“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), is the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed September 15, 2015, recommending
that Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part, to the extent that it seeks remand under sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that Defendant’s motion be denied. (Dkt. No. 29.) Objections to the
Report and Recommendation have not been filed.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation, but they must be “specific written objections,” and must
be submitted “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “Where, however, an objecting
‘party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments,
the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.’” Caldwell v. Crosset,
09- CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (citing Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.
Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]).
After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, the Court can find no clear
error in the Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 29) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14, 20, 27) is
GRANTED in part, to the extent that it seeks remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination is VACATED; and it is further
ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for
further proceedings consistent with the specific instructions outlined in the Report and
Dated: October 9, 2015
Syracuse, New York
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief, U.S. District Judge
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?