From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

May v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 31, 2010
5:09-CV-0331 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)

Opinion

5:09-CV-0331 (LEK/VEB).

March 31, 2010


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 15, 2010, by the Honorable Victor E. Bianchini, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 14).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Bianchini's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with this recommendation and pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g); and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

May v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 31, 2010
5:09-CV-0331 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)
Case details for

May v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ETHEL MAY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Mar 31, 2010

Citations

5:09-CV-0331 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)

Citing Cases

Edwards v. Astrue

Where the ALJ concluded, at step two of the analysis, that the plaintiff suffered from "severe impairments"…