Horn v. Berryhill, No. 2:2017cv00057 - Document 19 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: On September 5, 2018, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this matter be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to allow the ALJ to properly develop and clarify his reasons for his decision. Judge Lindsay electronically served a copy of the R&R on all parties the same day. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 63 6(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb . 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. This case shall be remanded to the ALJ to develop and clarify his decision as set forth in the R&R. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/21/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)

Download PDF
Horn v. Berryhill Doc. 19 FILED CLERK 10:35 am, Sep 21, 2018 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X PATRICIA HORN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER 2:17-cv-00057 (ADS)(ARL) -againstNANCY A. BERRYILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: Goldsmith & Tortora Counsel for the Plaintiff 2067 Jericho Turnpike Commack, NY 11725 By: Craig Joseph Tortora, Esq., Of Counsel. Social Security Administration United States Attorney’s Office 610 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY 11722 By: Megan Jeanette Freismuth, Esq., Of Counsel. SPATT, District Judge: On January 5, 2017, plaintiff Patricia Horn (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (the “Commissioner” or the “Defendant”), the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) at the time of filing, which denied her application for disability insurance benefits. ECF 1. On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings. ECF 8. Defendant cross moved for judgment on the pleadings on November 15, 2017. ECF 15. 1 Dockets.Justia.com On March 1, 2018, the Court referred the cross-motions to United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a recommendation as to whether the cross motions for judgment on the pleadings for either party should be granted, and if so, what relief should be ordered. On September 5, 2018, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this matter be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to allow the ALJ to properly develop and clarify his reasons for his decision. Judge Lindsay electronically served a copy of the R&R on all parties the same day. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. This case shall be remanded to the ALJ to develop and clarify his decision as set forth in the R&R. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: Central Islip, New York September 21, 2018 ___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_______ ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge 2

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.