Hamilton v. Colvin, No. 3:2014cv00118 - Document 20 (N.D.N.Y 2015)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER re 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by William Hamilton. It is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's 19 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED the Commissioner's 15 motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's 14 motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision denying di sability benefits is REVERSED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/13/2015. (dpk)

Download PDF
Hamilton v. Colvin Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ WILLIAM HAMILTON, Plaintiff, 3:14-CV-0118 (GTS/ATB) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LACHMAN & GORTON Counsel for Plaintiff P.O. Box 89 1500 East Main Street Endicott, NY 13761 PETER A. GORTON, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 SERGEI ADEN, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, filed on April 8, 2015, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be reversed, and the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 19.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can Dockets.Justia.com find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; and the case is remanded to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dated: May 13, 2015 Syracuse, New York 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-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). 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.