Altman v. Colvin

Filing 22

DECISION AND ORDER granting 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings; denying 18 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 21 Report and Recommendations. (Clerk to close case.). Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 11/22/17. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LON BENJAMIN ALTMAN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

No. 1:15-CV-00967 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER

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

Represented

by

counsel,

Lon

Benjamin

Altman(“plaintiff”)

brings this action pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act,
seeking review of the final decision of the Acting 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 November 7, 2017, Judge McCarthy recommended that
the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings, for
the reasons described therein.

Docket No. 21.

Both parties were

notified that they had 14 days within which to file objections;
however, neither party has filed an objection.

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. 21) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Docket No. 18) is denied, and plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 11) 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:

November 22, 2017
Rochester, New York.