Opinion
3:22-CV-0947 (GTS/DEP)
10-24-2023
LAURIE M. K., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
OLINKSKY LAW GROUP, Counsel for Plaintiff SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Counsel for Defendant. HOWARD D. OLINKSY, ESQ. VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ., Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.
APPEARANCES:
OLINKSKY LAW GROUP, Counsel for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Counsel for Defendant.
OF COUNSEL:
HOWARD D. OLINKSY, ESQ.
VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ., Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles, filed on September 1, 2023, recommending that (1) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, (3) Defendant's decision denying disability benefits be vacated, and (4) the case be remanded to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 18.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed, and the time period in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Peebles' thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no error in the Report-Recommendation, clear or otherwise: Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 18.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety: Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, Defendant's decision is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order t accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's decision denying disability benefits is VACATED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).