UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER P. R., Plaintiff, 5:24-CV-0576 (GTS/PJE) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. __________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: HILLER COMERFORD INJURY & JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. DISABILITY LAW Counsel for Plaintiff 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a Amherst, New York 14226 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Counsel for Defendant 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, filed on August 15, 2025, recommending that (1) the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff’s cross- motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, (3) the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be reversed, and (4) the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). (Dkt. No. 24.) 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 Evangelista’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-

Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Evangelista employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 24.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff’s cross- motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, the Commissioner’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 Evangelista’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further

1 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 the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). Dated: September 15, 2025 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge