UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ WILLIAM S., Plaintiff, 3:23-CV-1295 (GTS/DJS) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OLINSKY LAW GROUP HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff 250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210 Syracuse, New York 13202 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION KATHRYN POLLOCK, ESQ. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 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 Judge Daniel J. Stewart, filed on October 22, 2024, 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 reversed, and (4) the case be remanded to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). (Dkt. No. 23.) 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 Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 23.) 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

(g). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 19) 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 ORDERED that Defendant’s decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED; 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,

, 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 this matter is REMANDED to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). Dated: January 31, 2025 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge