Filed: Feb. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN , District Judge . I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February 1, 2016, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 14 ("Report-Recommendation"). Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the party "may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed fi
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN , District Judge . I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February 1, 2016, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 14 ("Report-Recommendation"). Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the party "may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed fin..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February 1, 2016, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 14 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's reportrecommendation, the party "may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court must review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . 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).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion (Dkt. No. 13) for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 12) for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant's decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff be REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report-Recommendation; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve copies of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.