Tiric v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19 ) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that this matter is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report-Recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 9/19/2022. (nmk)

Case 5:21-cv-00752-BKS-CFH Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ISMIR T., 1
Plaintiff,

5:21-cv-00752 (BKS/CFH)

v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
Appearances:
For Plaintiff:
Howard D. Olinsky
Olinsky Law Group
250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210
Syracuse, NY 13202
For Defendant:
Carla B. Freedman, United States Attorney
Luis Pere, Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
J.F.K. Federal Building, Room 625
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ismir T. filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3) seeking review
of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) finding that Plaintiff
was not disabled and ineligible for the disability insurance benefits for which he applied. (Dkt.
No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for a

1

In accordance with the local practice of this Court, Plaintiff’s last name has been abbreviated to protect his privacy.

Case 5:21-cv-00752-BKS-CFH Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2

Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.3(d). On August 31, 2022, after
reviewing the parties’ briefs and the Administrative Record, (Dkt. Nos. 10, 15, 18), Magistrate
Judge Hummel issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further
proceedings. (Dkt. No. 19). Magistrate Judge Hummel advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that
the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Id. at
47–48). Neither party filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation.
As no objection to the Report-Recommendation has been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear
error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is
ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the
Report-Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2022
Syracuse, New York

2