UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________

ANNEMARIE B.,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:23-CV-129 (FJS/CFH) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. _____________________________________________

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

OLINSKY LAW GROUP HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. 250 South Clinton Street Suite 210 Syracuse, New York 13202 Attorneys for Plaintiff

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION CANDACE M. BROWN CASEY, ESQ. OFFICE OF PROGRAM LITIGATION 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Attorneys for Defendant

SCULLIN, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to

(g), seeking review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") decision denying her applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings and for the Commissioner's decision to "be remanded for a directed finding of disability and calculation of benefits[,]" or, in the alternative, "for additional administrative proceedings including a de novo hearing and a new decision, preferably before a new ALJ." See Dkt. No. 14 at 12. The Commissioner moved to "remand[] this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to

(g)." See Dkt. No. 21-1 at 3. On February 5, 2024, Magistrate Judge Hummel issued a Report-Recommendation and Order, in which he recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the

pleadings "insofar as the matter is to be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Report-Recommendation & Order and that the ALJ's decision as to step 5 of his analysis be vacated" and grant the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings "insofar as the matter will be remanded for further proceedings[.]" See Dkt. No. 22 at 16. Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Hummel's recommendations and the time for them to do so has expired. When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625,

, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting this review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'"

(quoting

(b)(1)(C)). The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Hummel's February 5, 2024 Report- Recommendation and Order for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's February 5, 2024 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 14, is GRANTED insofar as this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation and Order and that the ALJ's decision as to Step 5 of his analysis is vacated; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 21, is GRANTED insofar as this matter will be remanded for further proceedings; and the Court further ORDERS that Step 5 of the ALJ's decision is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of

(g), for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation and Order; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Z / °

Dated: February 23, 2024 Freder&k J. @cullin, Jr. Syracuse, New York Senior United States District Judge

-3-