Marte v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER for 18 Report and Recommendations, 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Enrique Marte, 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Accordingly, I adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 11), is granted in part, Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 16), is denied, 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 the motions at Docs. 11 and 16, and to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 10/22/2018) (ne) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ENRIQUE MARTE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
:
Commissioner, Social Security
:
Administration,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

10/22/2018

17-CV-3567 (VSB) (JLC)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Enrique Marte brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (the “Acting Commissioner”) denying his application for
supplemental security income. (Doc. 1.) On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff moved for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an order
reversing the Acting Commissioner’s determination or, in the alternative, remanding for further
proceedings. (Docs. 11, 12.) On February 2, 2018, Defendant cross-moved for judgment on the
pleadings, seeking affirmance of her final decision. (Doc. 16.) I referred this case to Magistrate
Judge James L. Cott on July 21, 2017 for a report and recommendation on the cross-motions.
(Doc. 8.) Judge Cott issued his Report and Recommendation on June 14, 2018 (the “Report and
Recommendation” or “R&R”). (Doc. 18.) Neither party filed an objection.
Before me is Judge Cott’s unchallenged Report and Recommendation, which
recommends that the case be remanded for further analysis. Judge Cott’s R&R 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, the Report and Recommendation was filed on June 14, 2018. Although the Report
and Recommendation explicitly provided that “the parties have fourteen (14) days. . . from
service of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections,” (R&R 44), neither party filed
an objection. I therefore reviewed Judge Cott’s thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation for clear error and, after careful review of the record, found none.
Accordingly, I adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 11), is granted in part, Defendant’s cross-motion for judgment
on the pleadings, (Doc. 16), is denied, 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 the motions at Docs. 11 and 16,

2

and to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2018
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

3