The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this action for Social Security benefits filed by Alfonso Garcia ("Plaintiff") against Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue ("Defendant"), is a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommending that (1) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and (3) the case be remanded to the Commission for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 19.) Defendant has not filed objections to the Report-Recommendation and the time in which to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
Because neither party has objected to Part II of Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report-Recommendation describing the procedural background of this action, the Court adopts that description in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties. (See generally Dkt. No. 19, at Part II [Report-Rec].)
B. Briefing by the Parties
Generally, Plaintiff's brief in support of his Complaint asserts the following five arguments: (1) the administrative law judge ("ALJ") failed to evaluate his treating physician's opinion; (2) the ALJ neglected to properly assess the opinion of a consultative examiner; (3) the ALJ did not properly assess a treating nurse practitioner's opinion; (4) the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff's obesity as a severe impairment, and to consider the impact of obesity on Plaintiff's limitations; and (5) the ALJ failed to properly analyze Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). (Dkt. No. 13 at Points I.A. through I.E.)
Generally, in his opposition brief, Defendant asserts the following three arguments: (1) the ALJ properly evaluated evidence in the record; (2) the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff's obesity was not a severe impairment; and (3) the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff's RFC is compatible with light duty work is supported by evidence in the record. (Dkt. No. 15 at "Argument.")
C. Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report-Recommendation
On May 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Petitioner's case be remanded to the Commission for further review based on the fact that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record and failed to consider the issue of Plaintiff's obesity in making his decision. (See generally Dkt. No. 19.) More specifically, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bianchini finds that the ALJ committed the following errors: (1) the ALJ failed to properly review and develop the record with respect to the treating physician's determination that (a) Plaintiff had the ability to perform light duty work and (b) Plaintiff's condition did not require surgery; (2) the ALJ gave too little weight to the opinion of the consultative examiner; (3) the ALJ failed to consider the nurse practitioner's evaluation, which references Plaintiff using a cane to ambulate; (4) the ALJ failed to address the impact of Plaintiff's obesity in evaluating Plaintiff's limitations; and (5) the ALJ failed to properly assess Plaintiff's RFC. (Dkt. No. 19, at Part III.B.)
Based on the deficiencies outlined above, Magistrate Judge Bianchini recommends that Plaintiff's case be remanded to the Commissioner for further development of the record. (Id. at Part III.)
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard Governing Review of Report-Recommendation
When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be "specific," the objection must, with particularity, "identify  the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and  the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).*fn1 When performing such a de novo review, "[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district ...