Munoz v. Astrue
Filing
28
ORDER Adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Michael J. Astrue, 27 Report and Recommendations, 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Pablo R Munoz. I therefore adopt the Report an d Recommendation in its entirety. Judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor of Plaintiff, and this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Cl erk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate Docs. 20 and 24, and to enter judgment remanding this case. SO ORDERED. Motions terminated: 20 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Michael J. Astrue, 24 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Pablo R Munoz. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/10/2014) (ama)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------- X
:
PABLO R. MUNOZ,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
1
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, acting
:
Commissioner of Social Security,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
-------------------------------------------------------- X
9/10/2014
13-CV-1269 (VSB) (HBP)
ORDER
Appearances:
James M. Baker
Center for Disability Advocacy Rights
New York, New York
Counsel for Plaintiff
Vernon Norwood
Social Security Administration
New York, New York
Counsel for Defendant
VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Pablo R. Munoz brings this action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(G), seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant the
Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), denying his applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. On January 23, 2014, Defendant
moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 20.) On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff moved for
judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 24.) This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B.
1
Carolyn W. Colvin, who became the acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013, is substituted
as the defendant in this action in place of Michael J. Astrue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Pitman for a report and recommendation on the cross-motions. (Doc. 3.) Before me is Judge
Pitman’s July 21, 2014 Report and Recommendation, which recommends that judgment on the
pleadings be granted in favor of Plaintiff.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “To accept the report
and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Nelson v.
Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1985).
Here, although the Report and Recommendation provided that “the parties shall have
fourteen (14) days from the service of this Report to file written objections,” (Report and
Recommendation 43), neither party has filed an objection. I have reviewed Judge Pitman’s
thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation for clear error and, after careful review
of the record, find none. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor of Plaintiff, and this case is remanded
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the
Report and Recommendation.
The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to terminate Docs. 20 and 24, and to enter
judgment remanding this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2014
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge
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?