Christopher C. v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTOPHER C., Plaintiff, 5:24-cv-1593 (BKS/ML) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Appearances: For Plaintiff: Justin M. Goldstein Hiller Comerford Injury & Disability Law 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a Amherst, NY 14226 For Defendant: Vernon Norwood, Special Assistant United States Attorney 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 his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 3); L.R. 72.3(e). On February 26, 2026, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10, 11), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No. 6), Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; that the 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. 12). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(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. 12, at 12-13 (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. Petersen, 2 F. Supp. at 228–29. 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. 12) 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. 10) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the matter be REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2026 Syracuse, New York Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge