Knight v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 . The plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings 9 , is GRANTED. The defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 16 , is D ENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the file. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 2/1/2018. (CMD)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LISA M. KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

16-CV-788
ORDER

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

On September 30, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1.
On November 1, 2016, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge
Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket
Item 5. On May 26, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the
alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 9; on August 11, 2017, the
defendant responded and moved for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 16; and
on September 25, 2017, the plaintiff replied, Docket Item 17. On December 22, 2017,
Judge Scott issued a Report and Recommendation finding that the plaintiff's motion
should be granted and that the defendant's motion should be denied. Docket Item 18.
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. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate
judge to which no objections are raised. 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 any objections, the Court
accepts and adopts Judge Scott's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion and
deny the defendant's motion.
For the reasons stated above and in the Report and Recommendation, the
plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for
further proceedings, Docket Item 9, is GRANTED; the defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings, Docket Item 16, is DENIED; the decision of the Commissioner is
VACATED; and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings
namely, determination of disability. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the file.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 1, 2018
Buffalo, New York

s/Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2