White v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 20 Report and Recommendations; 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. (Doc 15). This case is REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 3/27/2019) (mro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
GERALD WHITE,
Plaintiff,

17-cv-4254 (PKC) (DF)

-againstORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------x
CASTEL, U.S.D.J.
On June 6, 2017, Gerald White, proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking review
of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying White Supplemental Security
Income benefits. (Doc 2.) The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Rule 12(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc 15.) White has not submitted any opposition to that motion.
This Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman to hear and
report.

(Doc 6.)

On March 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge Freeman issued a Report and

Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings be denied and that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (Doc
20.)
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).
The R&R advised the parties that they had 14 days from the service of the R&R to file any
objections with the undersigned, citing Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
warned that failure to file such objections would result in a waiver of any right to object. (R&R at

48−49.) The allotted 14 days have passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the R&R.
The parties received clear notice of the consequences of the failure to object and waived the right
to object to the R&R or obtain further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision. See Frank v.
Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766
(2d Cir. 2002); see also Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
When clear notice of the consequences of a failure to object has been provided,
the Court may adopt an unobjected-to report and recommendation without de novo review. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In such circumstances, “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). The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Freeman’s
thorough and well-reasoned R&R for clear error and found none. Therefore, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. (Doc 15).
This case is REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with
the R&R.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
March 27, 2019

-2-