Dausman Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2014cv00472 - Document 23 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 22 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety; reversing Defendant's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits; and REMANDING this matter to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/16/15. (lmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dausman Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________ VIRGINIA DAUSMAN FULLER, Plaintiff, 5:14-CV-0472 (GTS/TWD) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ______________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OLINSKY LAW GROUP Counsel for Plaintiff 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 DENNIS J. CANNING, ESQ. MONIKA K. CRAWFORD, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above-captioned matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, filed on August 11, 2015, recommending that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits be reversed, and the case be remanded to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 22.) No objections to the Report-Recommendation have 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 Dancks’ thorough Report- Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation, the Court can 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 Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits is REVERSED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dated: September 16, 2015 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief, U.S. District Judge 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.
