Spinner v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TOMMIE L. S., Plaintiff, -against- 5:24-CV-971 (LEK/DJS) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Tommie L. S. brings this Social Security appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) and 1383(c)(3) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Appeal”). Plaintiff filed a brief in support of their Appeal. Dkt. No. 13 (“Plaintiff’s Brief”). The government filed a brief in opposition. Dkt. No. 15. (“Defendant’s Brief”). Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. No. 16. The Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, reviewed Plaintiff’s Appeal and, on June 6, 2025, issued a report and recommendation. Dkt. No. 17 (“Report and Recommendation”). Judge Stewart ultimately recommended granting the Plaintiff’s Appeal, as well as reversing “Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits” due to insufficient information in the record developed by the Administrative Law Judge. Id. at 6–11. No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with Judge Stewart’s Report and Recommendation, as well as with Plaintiff’s factual allegations as detailed therein. See R. & R. at 2–7. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); see also L.R. 72.1. However, if no objections are made, a district court need only review a report and recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.”). Clear error “is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 368 F. Supp. 3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Additionally, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider an argument that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance. See Hubbard v. Kelley, 752 F. Supp. 2d 311 , 312–13 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In this circuit, it is established law that a district judge will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Upon review, a 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). IV. DISCUSSION No party objected to the Report and Recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Having found none, the Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 17, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Social Security appeal, Dkt. No. 1, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be REVERSED; and it is further ORDERED, that this matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 25, 2025 Albany, New York United States District Judge