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).
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?