Vargas v. O'Malley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ CASANDRA M. V., Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-620 (GTS/TWD) v. MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: HILLER COMERFORD INJURY & JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

DISABILITY LAW Counsel for Plaintiff 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, New York 14226 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION HEETANO SHAMSOONDAR, ESQ.

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.

Counsel for Defendant 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Thérèse Wiley Dancks, filed on August 27, 2024, recommending that (1) the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, (3) the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be reversed, and (4) the case be remanded to the Commissioner 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 in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks 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, the Commissioner’s decision is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further 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 to 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).

ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED, and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Dated: September 19, 2024 Syracuse, New York U.S. District Judge