Taylor v. Colvin
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 12 Magistrate Judge Hines' Report and Recommendation in its entirety; the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10 ) is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion for judgment on t he pleadings (Dkt. No. 8 ) is GRANTED; the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is VACATED; and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and consistent with the specific instructions outlined in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/5/15. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MELISSA J. TAYLOR,
COMM’R OF SOC. SEC.,
JOHN W. DEHAAN
Counsel for Plaintiff
300 Rabro Drive East, Suite 101
Hauppauge, New York 11788
JOHN W. DEHAAN, ESQ.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL – REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
DAVID B. MYERS, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this action filed by Melissa J. Taylor (“Plaintiff”)
against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking disability benefits, are the ReportRecommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines, issued pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 72.3(c) of the Local Rules of Practice
for this Court, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and the
case remanded. (Dkt. No. 12.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not
been filed, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hines’s
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation.1 As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted
in its entirety; and the case is remanded to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hines’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt.
No. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No.
10) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 8) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is
VACATED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social
Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
consistent with the specific instructions outlined in the Report and Recommendation.
August 5, 2015
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that reportrecommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983
Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v.
Walker, No. 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (“I am permitted to adopt those
sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections
are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
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?