Wantz v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ALEXIS W.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:24-CV-1131
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On September 17, 2024, plaintiff Alexis W.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action
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 (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1. Because
plaintiff did not consent to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, Dkt.
No. 4, the matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christan F. Hummel
1 In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference’s
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this
District, only the first name and last initial of plaintiff will be mentioned in this opinion.
Case 5:24-cv-01131-DNH-PJE Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
for the issuance of a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”). The matter was
later reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista. Dkt. No. 9.
The Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt.
No. 8, and the parties briefed the matter in accordance with General Order
18, which provides that an appeal from the Commissioner’s denial of benefits
should be treated as if the parties have filed cross-motions for a judgment on
the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 14, 18, 21.
On January 12, 2026, Judge Evangelista advised by R&R that plaintiff’s
motion should be granted, the Commissioner’s motion should be denied, the
Commissioner’s final decision should be vacated, and that this matter should
be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. No. 22.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so
has expired. Dkt. No. 22. Upon review for clear error, Judge Evangelista’s
R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED; and
5. This action is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.
Case 5:24-cv-01131-DNH-PJE Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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: January 27, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:24-cv-01131-DNH-PJE Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3