Oatman v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 7:2013cv00595 - Document 16 (N.D.N.Y 2014)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Rep ort and Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/4/2014. (dpk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ DALE JON OATMAN, Plaintiff, v. 7:13-CV-595 (TJM/TWD) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _________________________________________ THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge DECISION & ORDER This matter was referred to the Hon. Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.3(d) of the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York. In a Report and Recommendation dated July 30, 2014, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with her Report and Recommendation. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been lodged and the time for filing objections has expired. CONCLUSION After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [dkt. # 15] for the reasons stated 1 therein, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Dancks Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:September 4, 2014 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.