Tiffany N. B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TIFFANY N. B., Plaintiff, 5:24-cv-1206 (BKS/ML) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Appearances: For Plaintiff: Howard D. Olinsky Olinsky Law Group South Clinton Street, Suite 210 Syracuse, NY 13202 For Defendant: Kristina D. Cohn Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); Local Rule 72.3(e). On November 17, 2025, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 15), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No. 9), Magistrate Judge Lovric 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 the matter be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings, (Dkt. No. 16). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had “fourteen days within which to file written objections” to the Report-Recommendation and that “failure to object to th[e] report within fourteen days will preclude appellate review.” (Dkt. No. 16, at 18 (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 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, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Id. Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Lovric’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 Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2025 Syracuse, New York Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge