UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JESSE J.U.,

Plaintiff, 5:24-cv-422 (BKS/DJS)

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Appearances: For Plaintiff: Howard D. Olinsky Olinsky Law Group 250 South Clinton Street - Suite 210 Syracuse, NY 13202

For Defendant: Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration Kathryn Pollack Special Assistant United States Attorney 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this action under

(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart for a Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 3); Local Rule 72.3(e). On May 15, 2025, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 7, 13, 14), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No. 6), Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits be remanded pursuant to sentence four for further proceedings, (Dkt. No. 15). Magistrate Judge Stewart advised the parties that under

(b)(1), they had “14 days within which to file written

objections” to the Report-Recommendation and that “failure to object to th[e] report within 14 days will preclude appellate review.” (Dkt. No. 15, at 21–22 (citing Roldan v. Racette,

(2d Cir. 1993);

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 & 6(a)). No objections were filed. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue,

, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012);

(b)(1)(C). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error.

Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report- Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none.

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 13) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of

(g) for further proceedings. IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: August 1, 2025 Syracuse, New York

ba Cones Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge