Bechard v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 8:2013cv01472 - Document 22 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 21 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's # 16 motion for judgment on the pleadings; granting in part and denying in part # 19 Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings; and REMANDING this matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and consistent with the specific instructions outlined in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 10/14/15. (lmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bechard v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________ APRIL BECHARD, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 8:13-CV-1472 (GTS/WBC) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. _____________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ANDERSON LAMB & ASSOCIATES, PC Counsel for Plaintiff P.O. Box 1624 Burlington, VT 05402-1624 ARTHUR P. ANDERSON, ESQ. U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL – REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 ELIZABETH D. ROTHSTEIN, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by April Bechard (“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed September 17, 2015, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part and denied in part, and that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. No. 21.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation have not been filed. Dockets.Justia.com A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, but they must be “specific written objections,” and must be submitted “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the Court subjects that report and 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, 1995 WL 453299, 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 and citations omitted). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further 2 ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and consistent with the specific instructions outlined in the Report and Recommendation. Dated: October 14, 2015 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief, U.S. District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
