Carney v. Bisignano

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
REBECCA C.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:25-CV-862 (AJB/MJK)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On July 1, 2025, plaintiff Rebecca C.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review of the
final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her ap-
plication for benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. Along with her complaint, plain-
tiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3.
The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz for a Report & Recom-
mendation (“R&R”). See Dkt. No. 4. Judge Katz granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, Dkt. No. 7,
the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 11, 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 under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. Nos. 15, 23, 26.
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 5:25-cv-00862-AJB-MJK Document 28 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
On May 8, 2026, Judge Katz 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 proceedings. See Dkt. No. 27. Among
other things, Judge Katz concluded that the ALJ had failed to comply with a prior remand order
issued by the Appeals Council in connection with plaintiff’s benefits claim. See id.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 27. Upon review for clear error, Judge Katz’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. 27) 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 matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for fur-
ther administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:25-cv-00862-AJB-MJK Document 28 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 2