Monge v. Astrue

Filing 17

ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 11 Motion for Judgment filed by Angelo Rosario Monge, 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Michael Astrue. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The February 11, 2014 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman be and the same HEREBY is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and RATIFIED by the Court in its entirety; 2. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby DENIED; 3. Plaintiff's Cr oss-Motion is GRANTED, to the extent of ordering the matter remanded for further findings; 4. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further findings; and 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the docket in this matter. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/29/2014) (kgo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
ANGELO ROSARIO MONGE,
Plaintiff,
v.

11-CV-5019(DAB)(DF)
ADOPTION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
----------------------------------X
DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon the February 11, 2014
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Debra Freeman (“Report”). Judge Freeman’s Report recommends
denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
granting Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion, to the extent of ordering the
matter remanded for further findings. She further recommends
that the Administrative Law Judge be directed (1) to reevaluate
the severity of Plaintiff’s psychiatric impairments in certain
specified domains, giving due consideration to the treating
physician rule and identifying medical evidence in the record
sufficient to support any findings; (2) to reassess Plaintiff’s
Residual Functional Capacity in light of the particular nature
of his psychiatric impairments, giving explicit consideration to
information contained in a Report by Vega Lalire, Ph.D.; and (3)
to reformulate questions to a vocational expert, as necessary,

1

to enable the Administrative Law Judge to make a full and
reasoned analysis of the existing jobs, if any, that Plaintiff
would be capable of performing with his particular limitations.
(Report 49-50).
“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation], a party may serve
and file specific written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). The Court may adopt those portions of the Report
to which no timely objection has been made, as long as there is
no clear error on the face of the record. DiPilato v. 7–Eleven,
Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “[F]ailure to
object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of
any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.”
Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008)
(quoting Small v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16
(2d Cir. 1989)). To date, the Parties have filed no objections
to Judge Freeman’s Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and finding
no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The February 11, 2014 Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman be and the same

2

HEREBY is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and RATIFIED by the Court in
its entirety;
2. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby
DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion is GRANTED, to the extent of
ordering the matter remanded for further findings;
4. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security
for further findings; and
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the docket in
this matter.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
September 29, 2014

3