Murphy v. Bisignano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LAURIE A. M.,
Plaintiff, 	5:25-CV-0035 (GTS/DJS)
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD INJURY & 	JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
DISABILITY LAW 	MARY ELLEN GILL, ESQ.
Counsel for Plaintiff
6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a
Amherst, New York 14226
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	GEOFFREY M. PETERS, ESQ.
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Counsel for Defendant
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, filed on January 12, 2026 recommending that (1)
the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings be granted, and (3) the Commissioner’s decision denying disability
benefits be reversed and the decision be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 13.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not
Case 5:25-cv-00035-GTS-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper legal standards, accurately
recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 13.) As a result, the
Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings is granted, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, and the
Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11)
is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 	When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see
also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor,
J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific
objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
Case 5:25-cv-00035-GTS-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

Dated: February 27, 2026
Syracuse, New York
3
Case 5:25-cv-00035-GTS-DJS Document 15 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3