Taylor v. Colvin

Filing 21

DECISION AND ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendations, granting 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and denying 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/11/2017. (CDH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EDWARD A. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

No. 1:15-CV-00403 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Represented by counsel, Edward A. Taylor (“plaintiff”) brings
this action pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (“the
Act”), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his application for
disability insurance benefits.

The Court has jurisdiction over

this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is before
the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the
pleadings. The parties’ motions were referred to Magistrate Judge
Jeremiah J. McCarthy for consideration of the factual and legal
issues

presented,

and

to

prepare

and

file

a

Report

and

Recommendation (“R&R”) containing a recommended disposition of the
issues raised.
By R&R dated May 17, 2017, Judge McCarthy recommended that the
case be remanded for further administrative proceedings, for the
reasons described therein.
notified

that

they

were

Docket No. 19.
given

14

days

Both parties were

within

which

to

objections; however, neither party has filed an objection.

file

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy
of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the party “may
serve

and

file

specific,

written

objections

to

the

proposed

findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “Where no
objection is made to a report and recommendation, or the parties
make frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, only ‘clear
error’ review is required by the district court.”

Teixeria v. St.

Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 218, 222 (W.D.N.Y. 2016).
“After conducting the appropriate review, the district judge may
‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’”

Id. (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections having been filed, the Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the R&R (Docket No. 19) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Docket No. 17) is denied, and plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 10) is granted to the extent
that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.

S/Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

October 11, 2017
Rochester, New York.