Bligen v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Bligen v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 28, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-08801

StatusUnknown

This text of Bligen v. Commissioner of Social Security (Bligen v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bligen v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TAYLENCIA C. B., Plaintiff, 24-CV-8801 (JPO) -v- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL RECOMMENDATION SECURITY, Defendant.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff Taylencia C.B. filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her claim for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) On January 14, 2025, this Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses for a report and recommendation on any forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 7.) On March 10, 2025, the Commissioner of Social Security moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 11.) Judge Moses issued a careful and comprehensive Report and Recommendation (“Report”) in the matter suggesting that this Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and dismiss this action without prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. (ECF 19.) The Court has reviewed the Report. No party filed a timely objection to the Report. As such, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“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.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008). Judge Moses’ well-reasoned Report presents no such errors and is therefore fully adopted by this Court. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED without prejudice to any future action by Plaintiff challenging the Commissioner's final decision on her application for disability benefits. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2025 New York, New York

| J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TAYLENCIA C. B., Plaintiff, 24-CV-8801 (JPO) -v- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL RECOMMENDATION SECURITY, Defendant.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff Taylencia C.B. filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her claim for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) On January 14, 2025, this Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses for a report and recommendation on any forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 7.) On March 10, 2025, the Commissioner of Social Security moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 11.) Judge Moses issued a careful and comprehensive Report and Recommendation (“Report”) in the matter suggesting that this Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and dismiss this action without prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. (ECF 19.) The Court has reviewed the Report. No party filed a timely objection to the Report. As such, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“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.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008). Judge Moses’ well-reasoned Report presents no such errors and is therefore fully adopted by this Court. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED without prejudice to any future action by Plaintiff challenging the Commissioner's final decision on her application for disability benefits. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2025 New York, New York

| J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bligen v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bligen-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack