Ubiles v. Colvin

Filing 32

DECISION AND ORDER granting 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings; denying 27 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 30 Report and Recommendations. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/18/17. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAWN M. UBILES,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

No. 1:15-CV-00895 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER

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

Represented by counsel, Dawn M. Ubiles(“plaintiff”) brings
this action pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying her applications for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
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 Michael J. Roemer 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 September 28, 2017, Judge Roemer recommended that
the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings, for
the reasons described therein.
notified

that

they

were

given

Docket No. 30.
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. 30) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Docket No. 27) is denied, and plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 18) 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 18, 2017
Rochester, New York.