Latifu v. Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 19 Report and Recommendations,, 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Assana Latifu. It is hereby: ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated May 4, 2022, is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted. ORDERED that Defendant's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is de nied. ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16), and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 8/2/22) (yv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Download PDF
Case 7:21-cv-00884-KMK-JCM Document 20 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ASSANA LATIFU, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 21-CV-884 (KMK) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Assana Latifu (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”), which denied her application for disability insurance benefits and/or supplemental security income benefits. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff and the Commissioner cross-move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16.) The case was referred to the Honorable Judith C. McCarthy (“Judge McCarthy”). On May 4, 2022, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and deny the Commissioner’s Cross Motion. (Dkt. No. 19.) The Parties did not file any objections to the R&R. 1 “When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear error.” Disla v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-6663, 2022 WL 1063067, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022); see also Brito v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-CV-10631, 2022 1 Judge McCarthy provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy. (R&R 45–46.) Case 7:21-cv-00884-KMK-JCM Document 20 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2 WL 1002698, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022) (same); Bickram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-1160, 2021 WL 2665876, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2021) (same). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated May 4, 2022, is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted. ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied. ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 14, 16), and close this case. SO ORDERED. DATED: August 2, 2022 White Plains, New York ____________________________________ KENNETH M. KARAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?