Snogles v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18 ) is Accepted; that Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED; that the Commissioner's motion is DENIED; that the Commissioner's final decision is VACATED; and that this matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 10/25/2024. (mmg).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------MAUREEN S., Plaintiff, -v- 5:23-CV-1088 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OLINSKY LAW GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff 250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210 Syracuse, NY 13202 HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Attorneys for Defendant 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 GEOFFREY M. PETERS, ESQ. Special Ass’t U.S. Attorney DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION On August 28, 2023, plaintiff Maureen S. 1 (“plaintiff”) filed this civil action seeking review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1. Because plaintiff did not consent to the direct exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, Dkt. No. 3, the matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. No. 4. Thereafter, the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 8, and the parties briefed the matter in accordance with General Order 18, which provides that a district court appeal from the Commissioner’s administrative denial of benefits is treated as if the parties have filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 11, 16, 17. On October 10, 2024, Judge Lovric advised by R&R that plaintiff’s motion should be granted, the Commissioner’s motion should be denied, and the Commissioner’s final decision should be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. No. 18. 1 In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this District, only the first name and last initial of plaintiff will be mentioned in this opinion. -2- Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See Dkt. No. 18. Upon review for clear error, Judge Lovric’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED; 3. The Commissioner’s motion is DENIED; 4. The Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED; and 5. This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment accordingly, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 2024 Utica, New York. -3-

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?