Quessenberry v. Bisignano

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
CHRISTOPHER Q.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:24-CV-1456 (AJB/DJS)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On December 2, 2024, plaintiff Christopher Q.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking re-
view of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) deny-
ing his application for benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. Along with his com-
plaint, plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3.
The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, but was soon reassigned
to this Court, which referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart for a Report & Rec-
ommendation (“R&R”). See Dkt. Nos. 5, 7.
Judge Stewart granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, Dkt. No. 8, the Commissioner filed a
certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 9, and the parties briefed the matter in ac-
cordance with General Order 18, which provides that an appeal from the Commissioner’s denial
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 1:24-cv-01456-AJB-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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. 13, 20, 22.
On February 9, 2026, Judge Stewart advised by R&R that: (1) plaintiff’s motion should be
denied; (2) the Commissioner’s motion should be granted; (3) the Commissioner’s final decision
should be affirmed; and (4) plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. Dkt. No. 23.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 23. Upon review for clear error, Judge Stewart’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted.
See F ED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED;
4. The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED; and
5. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.
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: February 25, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:24-cv-01456-AJB-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2