George v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ LINDSEY M. G., Plaintiff, v. 5:24-CV-708 (FJS/ML) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL HILLER COMERFORD INJURY JEANNE E. MURRAY, ESQ. & DISABILITY LAW JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

6000 North Bailey Avenue - Suite 1a Amherst, New York 14226 Attorneys for Plaintiff SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION GEOFFREY M. PETERS, ESQ.

6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Attorneys for Defendant SCULLIN, Senior Judge ORDER Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. See Dkt. No. 1.

After a thorough review of the record, Magistrate Judge Lovric recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and deny Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 17 at 18. Magistrate Judge Lovric also recommended that the Court reverse and remand this matter to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with his Report and Recommendation. See id. Neither party filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation within the required timeframe.

When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error. See Kaliegh O. o/b/o S.S.T. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:24-cv-00662 (MAD/TWD), 2025 WL 2528577, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2025) (citations omitted). "'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. (quoting Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 229). "After the appropriate review, 'the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation and finds no clear error in his determination that the Court should remand the proceedings for further administrative review. Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Lovric's August 19, 2025 Report-Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 17, 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. 10, is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 15, is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that this matter is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation; 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 / L Dated: September 5, 2025 Prederi J Scullin, Ir.

Syracuse, New York Senior United States District Judge -3-