Chiellino v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIELLE C. o/b/o M.A.T., Plaintiff, -against- 6:24-CV-763 (LEK/PJE) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 11, 2025, by the Honorable Paul J. Evangelista, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and L.R. 72.3(e) of the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 14 (“Report and Recommendation”). For the reasons given below, this Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Danielle C., on behalf of M.A.T, her minor child, files suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (c)(3), appealing a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny M.A.T. Social Security benefits. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed a brief in support of the appeal, Dkt. No. 9, and Government filed a response brief in opposition, Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. No. 12. Judge Evangelista’s Report and Recommendation found in favor of the Plaintiff, recommending the matter be remanded for further proceedings. R. & R. at 19. The Court assumes familiarity with Judge Evangelista’s Report and Recommendation, as well as with Plaintiff’s factual allegations as detailed therein. See R. & R. at 2. 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 objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to the ReportRecommendation. See Dkt. After carefully examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation evinces no clear error or manifest injustice. V. CONCLUSION 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 the Plaintiffs cross-motion, Dkt. No. 9, be GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Commissioner’s cross-motion, Dkt. No. 11 be DENIED, and the Commissioner’s decision be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 30, 2025 Albany, New York United States District Judge