Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Yulfo v. Colvin, 17cv448. (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20180514b05 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 11, 2018
Latest Update: May 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY, III , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Ramona Yulfo commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. 42 U.S.C. 405(g). On March 20, 2017, this Court referred the matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge. 1 On December 6, 2017, the parties submitted a joint stipulation in lieu of motions for judgment on the ple
More

ORDER

Plaintiff Ramona Yulfo commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On March 20, 2017, this Court referred the matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge.1 On December 6, 2017, the parties submitted a joint stipulation in lieu of motions for judgment on the pleadings. On April 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court remand the case for further proceedings consistent with her Report and Recommendation and deny the Commissioner's cross motion. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

A district court "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)(1)(C). In reviewing a Report and Recommendation that has not been objected to, a court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Simms v. Graham, 2011 WL 6072400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011).

This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Netburn's extremely thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, and finds that it is not erroneous on its face. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The parties' failure to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation precludes appellate review of this decision. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).

Accordingly, this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Netburn's Report and Recommendation, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 19 and mark this case closed.

FootNotes


1. This case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker but was subsequently re-assigned to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer