Criswell v. Colvin
DECISION AND ORDER adopting 26 Report and Recommendations, granting 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and denying 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/10/2017. (CDH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
No. 1:16-CV-00620 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Represented by counsel, Jessica Criswell (“plaintiff”) brings
this action pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act (“the Act”), seeking review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying her
supplemental security income (“SSI”).
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
Hugh B. Scott 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 12, 2017, Judge Scott recommended that
the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings, for
the reasons described therein.
Docket No. 26.
Both parties were
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
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.
Accordingly, the R&R (Docket No. 26) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.
The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Docket No. 24) 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
October 10, 2017
Rochester, New York.
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?