Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 9, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-05715

StatusUnknown

This text of Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security (Ortiz 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

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ‘its OD

George Ortiz, Plaintiff, 20-cv-5715 (AJN) (SN) —y— ORDER Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Before the Court is Judge Netburn’s Report & Recommendation dated January 25, 2022, recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and deny the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Dkt. No. 27. When considering the findings and recommendations of a Magistrate Judge, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify [them], in whole or in part.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court must make a de novo determination of any portions of a magistrate’s report or findings to which a party raises an objection, and reviews only for “clear error on the face of the record” when there are no timely objections to the Report & Recommendation. Banks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-929 (AJN) (SDA), 2020 WL 2765686, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020); see also Brennan y. Colvin, No. 13-cv-6338 (AJN), 2015 WL 1402204, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015); Hicks v. Ercole, No. 09-cv-2531 (AJN) (MHD), 2015 WL 1266800, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015); Gomez v. Brown, 655 F. Supp. 2d 332, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Clear error is found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Laster v. Mancini, No. 07-cv-8265 (DAB)

(MHD), 2013 WL 5405468, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013) (quoting United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)). Objections to Judge Netburn’s Report & Recommendation were due by February 8, 2022. See Dkt. No. 27 at 17. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. The Court thus reviews the Report & Recommendation for clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the Report & Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Plaintiff's motions for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 20, DENIES the Commissioner’s motion, Dkt. No. 22, and REMANDS this case for further administrative proceedings on the grounds described by Judge Netburn. The Clerk of Court is respectfully ordered to close this case. SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2022 Ale \ ig New York, New York ‘ ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ‘its OD

George Ortiz, Plaintiff, 20-cv-5715 (AJN) (SN) —y— ORDER Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Before the Court is Judge Netburn’s Report & Recommendation dated January 25, 2022, recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and deny the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Dkt. No. 27. When considering the findings and recommendations of a Magistrate Judge, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify [them], in whole or in part.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court must make a de novo determination of any portions of a magistrate’s report or findings to which a party raises an objection, and reviews only for “clear error on the face of the record” when there are no timely objections to the Report & Recommendation. Banks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-929 (AJN) (SDA), 2020 WL 2765686, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020); see also Brennan y. Colvin, No. 13-cv-6338 (AJN), 2015 WL 1402204, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015); Hicks v. Ercole, No. 09-cv-2531 (AJN) (MHD), 2015 WL 1266800, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015); Gomez v. Brown, 655 F. Supp. 2d 332, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Clear error is found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Laster v. Mancini, No. 07-cv-8265 (DAB)

(MHD), 2013 WL 5405468, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013) (quoting United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)). Objections to Judge Netburn’s Report & Recommendation were due by February 8, 2022. See Dkt. No. 27 at 17. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. The Court thus reviews the Report & Recommendation for clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the Report & Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Plaintiff's motions for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 20, DENIES the Commissioner’s motion, Dkt. No. 22, and REMANDS this case for further administrative proceedings on the grounds described by Judge Netburn. The Clerk of Court is respectfully ordered to close this case. SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2022 Ale \ ig New York, New York ‘ ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack