Seifried v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a new hearing consistent with the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on September 29, 2014. (sas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRYSTAL ANN SEIFRIED, on behalf of A.A.B., Plaintiff, -against- 6:13-CV-0347 (LEK/TWD) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on July 30, 2014, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 15 (“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 need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App’x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); 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.”). No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. The Court therefore reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a new hearing consistent with the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15); and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 29, 2014 Albany, New York 2

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?