Habberfield v. Colvin

Filing 15

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion (Dkt. No. 13) for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. No. 12) for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff be REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report-Recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on February 24, 2016. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHELLE HABBERFIELD,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:14-cv-1422 (LEK/CFH)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February

1, 2016, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 14 (“Report-Recommendation”).
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); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an
objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the
magistrate judge, a district court must review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear
error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid
v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No.
06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s
objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular
findings in the magistrate’s proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by

simply relitigating a prior argument.”). “A [district] judge . . . 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).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. No. 13) for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 12) for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant’s decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff be
REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the ReportRecommendation; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

February 24, 2016
Albany, New York

2