Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Master Baye Balah Allah v. Colvin

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 31, 2017

MASTER BAYE BALAH ALLAH, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting as Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          NELSON S. ROMAN United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Master Baye Balah Allah ("Plaintiff') commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"), which denied Plaintiffs applications for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits, finding him not disabled. This case was previously referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. Currently pending in this case are (1) the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to affirm the Commissioner's decision, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 12(c)"), (Docket Nos. 14, 15, 25); and (2) Plaintiffs opposition to the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Docket Nos. 24, 27). On December 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), recommending that the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be denied, that the Commissioner's decision be vacated, and that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R & R. (See Docket No. 28.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge McCarthy's R & R in its entirety. As such, the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to affirm the Commissioner's decision is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff seeks to challenge the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiffs applications for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits, The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts and prior proceedings in this case, as set forth in the R & R. Plaintiff commenced the instant action on August 3, 2015. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and to affirm its decision on March 16, 2016. On December 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued the R & R recommending that this Court deny the Commissioner's motion, vacate the underlying decision, and remand for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R & R. Neither party has filed written objections to the R & R.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A magistrate judge may "hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense" if so designated by a district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In such a case, the magistrate judge "must enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation,

[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (3). However, "[t]o accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); accord Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.") (quoting Small v. Sec. of HHS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee note (1983 Addition, Subdivision (b)) ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.").

         DISCUSSION

         Here, as neither party objected to the R & R issued by Magistrate Judge McCarthy, the Court reviews the recommendation for clear error. The Court finds no error on the face of the R & R, and thus adopts Judge McCarthy's R & R in its entirety.

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and DENIES Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner's decision is vacated and remanded for further administrative proceedings in accordance with the R & R. As such, Plaintiffs motion for change of venue is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.