Edward M. v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Edward M. v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 18, 2026·No. 7:24-cv-07908·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWARD M., Plaintiff, No. 24-CV-7908 (KMK) v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On October 13, 2024, Edward M. (“Plaintiff”) brought this case pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 11, 2024, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause. (Dkt. No. 8), and the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones on December 10, 2025, (see Dkt.). Judge Jones issued a thorough Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 28, 2026, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings be granted, Defendant’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings be denied, and the case be remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence. (R&R 9, 20 (Dkt. No. 19)). No objections were filed.1 When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear error. See Torres v. Golden Home Furniture Inc., No. 20-CV-4789, 2023 WL 3791807, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023) (citing Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y.

1 Judge Jones provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of the receipt of the R&R, and that failure to object would constitute a waiver of either Party’s right to raise any objections to the R&R on appeal. (See R&R 21–22.) 2010)); see also ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-9527, 2022 WL 17070111, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022) (same). The Court has reviewed the R&R and, finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R in its entirety. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated January 28, 2026, is ADOPTED in its entirety, and that the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with

the R&R. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2026 White Plains, New York KENNETH M. KARAS 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 EDWARD M., Plaintiff, No. 24-CV-7908 (KMK) v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On October 13, 2024, Edward M. (“Plaintiff”) brought this case pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 11, 2024, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause. (Dkt. No. 8), and the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones on December 10, 2025, (see Dkt.). Judge Jones issued a thorough Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 28, 2026, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings be granted, Defendant’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings be denied, and the case be remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence. (R&R 9, 20 (Dkt. No. 19)). No objections were filed.1 When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear error. See Torres v. Golden Home Furniture Inc., No. 20-CV-4789, 2023 WL 3791807, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023) (citing Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y.

1 Judge Jones provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of the receipt of the R&R, and that failure to object would constitute a waiver of either Party’s right to raise any objections to the R&R on appeal. (See R&R 21–22.) 2010)); see also ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-9527, 2022 WL 17070111, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022) (same). The Court has reviewed the R&R and, finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R in its entirety. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated January 28, 2026, is ADOPTED in its entirety, and that the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with

the R&R. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2026 White Plains, New York KENNETH M. KARAS United States District Judge

Edward M. v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Edward M. v. Commissioner of Social Security (Edward M. v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related