Marrero Santana v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 35

ORDER for 28 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Geovanny Marrero Santana, 34 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, I adopt the Report an d Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 24), is granted, Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 28), is denied, and this case is remanded for further proceedings co nsistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docs. 24 and 28, and enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 5/30/2019) (rro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
GEOVANNY MARRERO SANTANA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, :
:
Defendant. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

5/30/2019

17-CV-2648 (VSB) (BCM)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Geovanny Marrero Santana brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final determination of the
Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying his application for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (Doc. 1.) On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff
moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking an order reversing the Commissioner’s determination and remanding for
further proceedings. (Doc. 24.) On March 15, 2018, Defendant cross-moved for judgment on
the pleadings, seeking affirmance of its final decision. (Doc. 28.) I referred this case to
Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on September 13, 2017 for a report and recommendation on
the cross-motions. (Doc. 14.) Magistrate Judge Moses issued her Report and Recommendation
on January 17, 2019 (the “Report and Recommendation” or “Report”). (Doc. 34.) Neither party
filed an objection to the Report.
Before me is Judge Moses’s unchallenged Report and Recommendation, which
recommends that the case be remanded for further analysis. Judge Moses’s Report is thorough

and detailed, and I accept its findings and recommendations, and direct that this case be
remanded consistent with the findings in the Report and Recommendation.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 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). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the
report and recommendation within 14 days of being served with a copy of the report. Id.; see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When a party submits a timely objection, a district court reviews
de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When neither party submits an objection to a
report and recommendation, or any portion thereof, a district court reviews the report and
recommendation for clear error. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Wilds
v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.
Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Here, although the Report and Recommendation explicitly provided that “[t]he parties
shall have 14 days from this date to file written objections,” (Doc. 34 at 28), neither party filed
an objection. I therefore reviewed Judge Moses’s thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation for clear error and, after careful review, found none. Accordingly, I adopt the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,
(Doc. 24), is granted, Defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 28), is
denied, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and
Recommendation.

2

The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docs. 24 and 28,
and enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 30, 2019
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

3