UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________________ CATHERINE J. H., Plaintiff, 8:23-CV-0160 (GTS/MJK) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _______________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, New York 14226 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for Defendant 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above-captioned matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Andrew T. Baxter,1 filed on December 15, 2023, recommending that (1) Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, (2) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (3) the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be reversed, and (4) this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). (Dkt. No. 16.) Objections to the Report- 1 On January 5, 2024, this matter was reassigned to United States Magistrate Judge Recommendation have not been filed, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-

Recommendation.2 Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 16.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; 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 to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and it is further

2 When no specific 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,

, 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

(g). Dated: February 7, 2024 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge