Torres v. Berryhill, No. 1:2016cv00745 - Document 20 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 . the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 13 , is GRANTED; the defendant's cross-motion for jud gment on the pleadings, Docket Item 14 , is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED; and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings, consistent with the R&R. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/26/2018. (CMD)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Torres v. Berryhill Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Sarah Torres o/b/o J.E.D.L.T., Plaintiff, v. 16-CV-745 Decision and Order Nancy A. Berryhill, Defendant. On September 15, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action, seeking review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security. Docket Item 1. On October 28, 2016, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 6. On April 5, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 13; on June 9, 2017, the defendant responded and cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 14; and on August 18, 2017, the plaintiff replied, Docket Item 18. On May 15, 2018, Judge Scott issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that the plaintiff's motion should be granted and that the defendant's motion should be denied. Docket Item 19. The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so now has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s Dockets.Justia.com recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has reviewed Judge Scott's R&R. Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Scott's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion and deny the defendant's motion. For the reasons stated above and in the Report and Recommendation, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 13, is GRANTED; the defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 14, is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED; and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings, consistent with the R&R. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2018 Buffalo, New York s/Lawrence J. Vilardo LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
