Levy v. Commissioner of Social Security Case remanded to the Social Security Administration.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IMOGENE SHAHERA LEVY,
Plaintiff,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-05397
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Imogene Shahera Levy filed this suit against
the Commissioner of Social Security seeking judicial
review of a decision by an administrative law judge
denying her application for disability benefits and
supplemental security income. See Dkt 1 at 2. The case was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho.
Dkt 7.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt 14.
Defendant then filed an unopposed motion to remand the
case to the Social Security Administration for further
administrative proceedings. Dkt 19.
Judge Ho recommends that the motion to remand be
granted as unopposed, and that final judgment enter
reversing the decision by the ALJ and remanding this
action to the Social Security Administration. See Dkt 20
at 1. She also recommends that the motion for summary
judgment be denied as moot. See Dkt 21.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05397 Document 22 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon
review and consideration of the Memoranda and
Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law.
The Memoranda and Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkts 20 & 21.
The motion to remand is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED.
Dkt 19.
The decision by the administrative law judge denying
benefits to Plaintiff Imogene Shahera Levy is REVERSED.
This action is REMANDED to the Social Security
Administration for further proceedings.
The motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff
Imogene Shahera Levy is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 14.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED
Signed on _______________, at Houston Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 25, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-05397 Document 22 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2