Leonhardt v. Bisignano

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
MARTIN L.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	1:24-CV-1594 (AJB/ML)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On December 31, 2024, plaintiff Martin L.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review of
the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his
application for benefits under the Social Security Act. 	Dkt. No. 1. 	Along with his complaint,
plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3.
The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd, who referred the
matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”). See
Dkt. No. 8. Judge Lovric granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, Dkt. No. 5, the Commissioner filed
a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 9, 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
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-01594-AJB-ML Document 21 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. Nos. 14, 16, 18. 	The matter was later
reassigned to this Court but remained referred to Judge Lovric for an R&R. Dkt. No. 19.
On February 27, 2026, Judge Lovric 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.
See Dkt. No. 18.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 20. Upon review for clear error, Judge Lovric’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. 20) 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: March 16, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 1:24-cv-01594-AJB-ML Document 21 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2