You're viewing Docket Item 22 from the case Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-04815-JPO-JCF Document 22 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED SlATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHEIUf DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------r----------------------------------------------~

KENDALL ONES,

Plaintiff,

-v-

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________ L _____________________________________________ )(

I

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:

r;====-==­

FILED

12 Civ. 4815 (JPO)(JCF)

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The plaintiff, Kendall Jones, brings this action pursuant to section 405(g) of the Social

Security Ad, 42 U.S.c. 405(g), seeking review of a detennination by the Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, which affinned a decision by an Administrative Law Judge,

finding that Jones was disabled as of October 1, 2011, but neither disabled nor accordingly

entitled to disability insurance benefits or Supplemental Security Income from January 6, 2011

through September 30, 20 II. Each party submitted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in

accordance with Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the

administrative record and the parties' submissions, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV issued

a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court to vacate the Commissioner's

I

decision and remand the case for further proceedings. The Court adopts Judge Francis's Report

and Recomrpendation in its entirety.

I.

Standard of Review

In re:viewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court "may

accept, rejest, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

Case 1:12-cv-04815-JPO-JCF Document 22 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 3

magistratejqdge." 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(I)(C). Where a magistrate judge provides notice to the

parties in a rlport and recommendation that any objections must be provided within a certain

period, and 10 such objections are filed, the district court will review the magistrate's finding for

clear error. $ee WoljJv. Town ofMI. Pleasant, No. 06 Civ. 3865 (CS)(LMS), 2009 WL

t

1468620, at ?Ie 1 (S.O.N. Y. May 26, 2009) ("The district court may adopt those portions of a

t

report and r~commendation to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is

apparent from the face of the record." (citing cases)); accord Mott v. IBM, No.1 0 Civ. 4933

(JFB) (WOW), 2011 WL 3847176, at *1 (E.O.N.Y. Aug. 30,2011) ("Where clear notice has

been given qf the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may

i

adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review." (citing cases)). In sum, "[i]t does

not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or

legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those

findings." T;homas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

II.

Application

Here~ Magistrate Judge Francis determined that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALl"):

(1) did not e~plain to Jones why he failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of Dr.

Rodriguez~Jones's treating physician-that Jones was unemployable (R&R at 23-24); (2) failed

to explain the reasoning behind his residual capacity conclusions, including his determination

that Jones could "stand, sit, and walk up to six hours in an eight-hour work day" and lift a

moderate a~ount Od. at 24-26); and (3) did not explain how he determined that Jones had

i

"residual fuijctional capacity for low stress work with simple, routine, repetitive tasks, and only

occasional interaction with the public and co-workers," in light of his mental history and Dr.

Rodriguez' sl "conclusion to the contrary" (id. at 27). Judge Francis also found that while Jones

2


Case 1:12-cv-04815-JPO-JCF Document 22 Filed 07/11/13 Page 3 of 3

requested a j~dgment on the pleadings as to his remedy, he had not shown that he was entitled to

benefits bas d on the administrative record of the proceedings below, as there was "no such

record of tot I disability for the period in dispute." (ld. at 28.) In conclusion, Judge Francis

I

recommended that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits to Jones from

I

January 6, 20 II through September 30, 20 II be vacated and remanded for further proceedings in

[

accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Judge Francis's Report also informed the

parties ofth¢ir right to object to his findings within 14 days of its date. (ld.) Judge Francis's

Report and Recommendation was issued on April 30, 2013. To date, no party has objected to the

Report's conclusions. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts

Judge Francis's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

III.

I

Conclusion

In ac:cordance with Magistrate Judge Francis's Report and Recommendation of April 30,

2013, the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff from January 6, 2011

to September 30,20 II is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings in

I

accordance rith Judge Francis's opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at

docket entry number 17 and to close the case.

i

I

SO cDRDERED.

Dated: New, York, New York

July 11,2013

J . PAUL OETKEN

United States District Judge

3