Mann v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2014cv01285 - Document 14 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 13 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendant's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/12/15. (lmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mann v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________ JOHN PAUL MANN, Plaintiff, Case no. 1:14-CV-1285 (GTS/TWD) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _______________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OFFICE OF PETER M. MARGOLIUS Counsel for Plaintiff 7 Howard Street Catskill, New York 12414 PETER M. MARGOLIUS, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION LAUREN E. MYERS, ESQ. OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this action filed by John Paul Mann (“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking Social Security disability insurance benefits and Social Security income benefits, is the ReportRecommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 72.3(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, recommending that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security disability insurance benefits or Social Security income benefits be reversed and that this matter be remanded to Defendant. (Dkt. No. 13.) The parties have filed no Objection to the Report- Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, Defendant’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded to Defendant. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s decision is REVERSED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order. Dated: November 12, 2015 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief, United States District Judge 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that reportrecommendation 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 omitted). 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.
