Coyle v. Bisignano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
5:24-cv-1593 (BKS/ML)
Appearances:
For Plaintiff:
Justin M. Goldstein
Hiller Comerford Injury & Disability Law
6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a
Amherst, NY 14226
For Defendant:
Vernon Norwood, Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income benefits. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 3); L.R. 72.3(e). On February
26, 2026, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10, 11), and the Administrative
Transcript, (Dkt. No. 6), Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a Report-Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; that the
Case 5:24-cv-01593-BKS-ML Document 14 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the matter be reversed and
remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
proceedings. (Dkt. No. 12). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), they had “14 days within which to file written objections” to the Report-
Recommendation and that “failure to object to th[e] report within 14 days will preclude appellate
review.” (Dkt. No. 12, at 12-13 (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72). No objections were filed.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v.
Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and
recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear
error. Petersen, 2 F. Supp. at 228–29. Neither of the parties has raised any objection to
Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report-
Recommendation for clear error and found none.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is
ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 7) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is
DENIED; and it is further
Case 5:24-cv-01593-BKS-ML Document 14 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERED that the matter be REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01593-BKS-ML Document 14 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3