Baez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. This Court agrees that remand to the Social Security Administration is appropriate. Magistrate Judge Fox's Report and Recommendation is adopted. The Defendant's motion for remand for further administrative pro ceedings is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 21. So ordered. Re 25 Report and Recommendation 21 Motion to Remand to Agency filed by Commissioner of Social Security. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/19/2016) (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - --- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

LINDA ANTONIA BAEZ,
Plaintiff,
-againstCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

I
MErvf.ORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
16 Civ. 822 (GBD) (KNF)

Defendant.

- - - - --- - --- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x
GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Linda Antonia Baez brought this action seeking review of a determination
by the Commissioner of Social Security that she is ineligible for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (Compl.,
ECF No. 2, at 1.) In response, Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner")
filed an unopposed motion to remand to the Social Security Administration for further
administrative proceedings. (Def s. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 21.)
Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox's November 22, 2016 Report and
Recommendation ("Report," (ECF No. 25)), recommending that Defendant's motion be granted. 1
(Report, at 1.) This Court adopts that recommendation.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, m whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations" set forth within a magistrate judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). The
Court must review de nova the portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a party properly
objects. Id. Portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no or merely perfunctory objections

1

The relevant procedural and factual background is set forth in greater detail in the Report, and is
incorporated herein.

I

have been made are reviewed for clear error. See Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 34647 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Clear error is present only when "upon review of the entire record, [the court
is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Brown v.

Cunningham, No. 14-CV-3515, 2015 WL 3536615, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2015) (internal
citations omitted).
This Court has the "power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without
remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court may set aside a decision by
the Commissioner if it is based upon legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. See

Hickson v. Astrue, No. 09-CV-2049, 2011 WL 1099484, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2011).
Magistrate Judge Fox advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report
would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Report, at 3.) No objection to the Report
has been filed. Having found no clear error, this Court adopts the Report in full.
The Report correctly found that the Administrative Law Judge committed legal errors in
Plaintiff's earlier administrative proceedings, as conceded by the Commissioner in her
memorandum of law. (See id., at 1-2.) Accordingly, this Court agrees that remand to the Social
Security Administration is appropriate.
Magistrate Judge Fox's Report and Recommendation is adopted. The Defendant's motion
for remand for further administrative proceedings is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 21.
Dated: New York, NeviYork
December _, 16

I

2b

DEC 19 2016

SO ORDERED.

/ fi_ 'Yon~
B. DANIELS
United States District Judge

-2-