Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 21 Report and Recommendations; terminating 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. In accordance with Magistrate Judge Francis's Report and Recommendatio n of April 30, 2013, the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff from January 6, 2011 to September 30, 2011 is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with Judge Francis's opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at docket entry number 17 and to close the case. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 7/11/2013) (mro)

r;====-==­
UNITED SlATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHEIUf DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------r ----------------------------------------------~

FILED

KENDALL ONES,
Plaintiff,
12 Civ. 4815 (JPO)(JCF)
-v-

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

_______________L _____________________________________________ )(

I
J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
The plaintiff, Kendall Jones, brings this action pursuant to section 405(g) of the Social
Security Ad, 42 U.S.c. 405(g), seeking review of a detennination by the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, which affinned a decision by an Administrative Law Judge,
finding that Jones was disabled as of October 1, 2011, but neither disabled nor accordingly
entitled to disability insurance benefits or Supplemental Security Income from January 6, 2011
through September 30, 20 II. Each party submitted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in
accordance with Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the
administrative record and the parties' submissions, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV issued
a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court to vacate the Commissioner's
I

decision and remand the case for further proceedings. The Court adopts Judge Francis's Report
and Recomrpendation in its entirety.

I.

Standard of Review
In re:v iewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court "may

accept, rejest, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistratejqdge." 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(I)(C). Where a magistrate judge provides notice to the
parties in a rlport and recommendation that any objections must be provided within a certain
period, and

1 such objections are filed, the district court will review the magistrate's finding for
0
t

clear error. $ee WoljJv. Town ofMI. Pleasant, No. 06 Civ. 3865 (CS)(LMS), 2009 WL
t

1468620, at
report and

?Ie

1 (S .O.N. Y. May 26, 2009) ("The district court may adopt those portions of a

r~commendation

to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is

apparent from the face of the record." (citing cases)); accord Mott v. IBM, No.1 0 Civ. 4933
(JFB) (WOW), 2011 WL 3847176, at * 1 (E.O.N.Y. Aug. 30,2011) ("Where clear notice has
been given qf the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may
i

adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review." (citing cases)). In sum, "[i]t does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or
legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings." T;homas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

II.

Application
Here~

(1) did not

Magistrate Judge Francis determined that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALl"):

e~plain

to Jones why he failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of Dr.

Rodriguez~Jones's

treating physician-that Jones was unemployable (R&R at 23-24); (2) failed

to explain the reasoning behind his residual capacity conclusions, including his determination
that Jones could "stand, sit, and walk up to six hours in an eight-hour work day" and lift a
moderate a~ount Od. at 24-26); and (3) did not explain how he determined that Jones had
i

"residual fuijctional capacity for low stress work with simple, routine, repetitive tasks, and only
occasional interaction with the public and co-workers," in light of his mental history and Dr.
Rodriguez' sl"conclusion to the contrary" (id. at 27). Judge Francis also found that while Jones
2

requested a

j~dgment on the pleadings as to his remedy, he had not shown that he was entitled to

benefits bas d on the administrative record of the proceedings below, as there was "no such
record of tot I disability for the period in dispute." (ld. at 28.) In conclusion, Judge Francis

I

recommended that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits to Jones from

I

January 6, 20 II through September 30, 20 II be vacated and remanded for further proceedings in
[

accordance with the Report and Recommendation . Judge Francis's Report also informed the
parties ofth¢ir right to object to his findings within 14 days of its date. (ld.) Judge Francis's
Report and Recommendation was issued on April 30, 2013. To date, no party has objected to the
Report's conclusions. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts
Judge Francis's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

III.

I

Conclusion
In ac:cordance with Magistrate Judge Francis's Report and Recommendation of April 30,

2013, the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff from January 6, 2011
to September 30,20 II is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings in

I
accordance rith Judge Francis's opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at
i

docket entry number 17 and to close the case.
I

SO cDRDERED.
Dated: New, York, New York
July 11,2013
J . PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

3