Ubiles v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2015cv00895 - Document 32 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings; denying 27 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 30 Report and Recommendations. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/18/17. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Ubiles v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAWN M. UBILES, Plaintiff, -vs- No. 1:15-CV-00895 (MAT) DECISION AND ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Represented by counsel, Dawn M. Ubiles(“plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. The parties’ motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for consideration of the factual and legal issues presented, and to prepare and file a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) containing a recommended disposition of the issues raised. By R&R dated September 28, 2017, Judge Roemer recommended that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings, for the reasons described therein. notified that they were given Docket No. 30. 14 days Both parties were within which to file objections; however, neither party has filed an objection. Dockets.Justia.com Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, or the parties make frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, only ‘clear error’ review is required by the district court.” Teixeria v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 218, 222 (W.D.N.Y. 2016). “After conducting the appropriate review, the district judge may ‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections having been filed, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the R&R (Docket No. 30) is approved and adopted in its entirety. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 27) is denied, and plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 18) is granted to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED. S/Michael A. Telesca HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge Dated: October 18, 2017 Rochester, New York.