Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
KAYLA-MARIE J.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	6:25-CV-269 (AJB/DJS)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On March 3, 2025, plaintiff Kayla-Marie J.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review
of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her
application for benefits under the Social Security Act. 	Dkt. No. 1. 	Along with her complaint,
plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3.
The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart for a Report & Recom-
mendation (“R&R”). See Dkt. No. 6. Judge Stewart granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, Dkt. No.
7, 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 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 15.
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 6:25-cv-00269-AJB-DJS Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
On April 28, 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. See Dkt. No. 16.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 16. 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. 16) 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: May 18, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 6:25-cv-00269-AJB-DJS Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 2