Williams v. Colvin
ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the plaintiff's 9 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED; the defendant's 11 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/25/2017. (CMD)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LISA M. WILLIAMS,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
On September 19, 2016, the plaintiff, Lisa M. Williams, commenced this action.
Docket Item 1. On January 19, 2017, the Court referred this case to United States
Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B). Docket Item 7. On February 12, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment on
the pleadings, or, in the alternative, to remand the matter for further development of the
record. Docket Item 9. On April 2, 2017, the defendant responded to the plaintiff’s
motion and moved for judgment on the pleadings. Docket Item 11. And on May 4,
2017, the plaintiff replied. Docket Item 12.
On September 5, 2017, Judge Scott issued a Report and Recommendation
finding that the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted and
that the defendant’s motion for the same relief should be denied. Docket Item 14. The
parties did not object to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so now
has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court
must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. Section 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
require a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no
objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has
reviewed Judge Scott's Report and Recommendation as well as the parties’
submissions to him. Based on that review and the absence of objections, the Court
accepts and adopts Judge Scott's recommendation to grant the plaintiff’s motion and
deny the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the plaintiff’s motion
(Docket Item 9) is GRANTED; the defendant’s motion (Docket Item 11) is DENIED; the
decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; and this matter is REMANDED for further
September 25, 2017
Buffalo, New York
s/Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?