Ross v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS R.,
Plaintiff,
-against- 	6:24-CV-1226 (LEK/DJS)
COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Thomas R. brings this Social Security appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
and 1383(c)(3) against the Commissioner of Social Security. Dkt. No. 1 (“Appeal”). Plaintiff
filed a brief in support of their Appeal. Dkt. No. 11. The government filed a brief in opposition.
Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. No. 16. The Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States
Magistrate Judge, reviewed Plaintiff’s Appeal and, on October 29, 2025, issued a report and
recommendation. Dkt. No. 17 (“Report and Recommendation”). Judge Stewart recommended
granting the appeal and remanding the matter for reconsideration. Id. at 11.
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
II. 	BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with Judge Stewart’s Report and Recommendation, as
well as with Plaintiff’s factual allegations as detailed therein. See R. & R. at 2–4.
III. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings
Case 6:24-cv-01226-LEK-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
and recommendations as provided by rules of the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also L.R.
72.1. However, if no objections are made, a district court need only review a report and
recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to
which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of
the record.”). Clear error “is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 368 F. Supp. 3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Upon review, a court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being
served with a copy” of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report
and Recommendation for clear error. Having found none, the Court approves and adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 17, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Social Security appeal, Dkt. No. 1, is GRANTED; and it is
further
ORDERED, that this matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security
for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation; and it is further
Case 6:24-cv-01226-LEK-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 22, 2026
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-01226-LEK-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 3