Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
TOWANDA B., on behalf of A.N.B.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:24-CV-1022 (AJB/DJS)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On August 20, 2024, plaintiff Towanda B.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this civil action on behalf of
minor A.N.B. seeking review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the
Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. Along with her complaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3. The case was initially assigned to Senior
U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd, who referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart
for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. No. 5.
Judge Stewart granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, Dkt. No. 7, the Commissioner filed a
certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. Nos. 10, 13, and the parties briefed the matter
in accordance with General Order 18, which provides that an appeal from the Commissioner’s
denial of benefits will be treated as if the parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings
1 On May 1, 2018, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management issued a
memorandum that encouraged courts to better protect the privacy of non-governmental parties in Social Security
matters by using only the first name and last initial of the claimant in published opinions.
Case 5:24-cv-01022-AJB-DJS Document 20 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. Nos. 14, 16, 17. The matter was
later reassigned to this Court for all further proceedings but remained referred to Judge Stewart
for the issuance of an R&R. Dkt. No. 18.
On October 29, 2025, Judge Stewart advised by R&R that: (1) plaintiff’s motion should
be granted; (2) the Commissioner’s motion should be denied; (3) the Commissioner’s final
decision should be vacated; and (4) this matter should be remanded for further administrative
proceedings. Dkt. No. 19.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired.
See Dkt. No. 19. Upon review for clear error, Judge Stewart’s R&R is accepted and will be
adopted. See FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED;
5. This matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Stewart’s R&R.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment
accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2025
Utica, New York.
Case 5:24-cv-01022-AJB-DJS Document 20 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 2