Henny v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 28 for 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and, for the reasons set forth therein, denies the Commi ssioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court remands the case for the purposes explained in Judge Netburn's R&R. See R&R at 21. The Clerk of Court is directed mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail, to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 24, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/30/2017) (anc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
:
ASHLEY Y. HENNY,
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 03/30/2017

1:16-cv-02551-GHW-SN
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
On April 4, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Ashley Henny filed a complaint seeking judicial review
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. Dkt. No. 2. By order dated July 18, 2016, the
Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Netburn for a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). Dkt. No. 15. On October 21, 2016, Defendant filed its motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Dkt. No. 24. Plaintiff did not submit an opposition. Judge Netburn issued her R&R on
March 15, 2017, recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be denied and the case be
remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. R&R at 21, Dkt. No. 28. The R&R
advised that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the service” of the R&R “to file written
objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” R&R at 21. No party has lodged objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has
expired.
In reviewing an R&R, 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)(C). A district

court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If
no timely objections are made, however, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record.” King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810, 2009 WL 2001439, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (citation omitted); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169
(S.D.N.Y. 2003).
After reviewing the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Netburn’s well-reasoned
and careful R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and, for the reasons set
forth therein, denies the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court
remands the case for the purposes explained in Judge Netburn’s R&R. See R&R at 21.
The Clerk of Court is directed mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail, to
terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 24, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2017
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2