McCord v. Commissioner of Social Security

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
NICOLE M.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:23-CV-1517 (AJB/DJS)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On December 1, 2023, plaintiff Nicole M.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review
of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) 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 case was initially assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge David
N. Hurd. See Dkt. No. 5. Judge Hurd referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart,
who granted plaintiff’s IFP Application. Dkt. No. 6.
On March 5, 2024, the parties stipulated to a “sentence six” remand, which permitted the
Court to retain jurisdiction pending further administrative proceedings. Dkt. No. 8. Judge Hurd
so-ordered that stipulation. Dkt. No. 9. Thereafter, the parties returned to federal court, Dkt. No.
12, the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 10, and the
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 5:23-cv-01517-AJB-DJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
parties briefed the matter in accordance with General Order 18, which provides that appeals from
the Commissioner’s denial of benefits are treated as if the parties have cross-moved for judgment
on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 11, 14, 15. The matter was later reassigned to this Court but was left
referred to Judge Stewart for the issuance of an R&R. Dkt. No. 16.
On December 17, 2025, Judge Stewart advised by R&R that: (1) plaintiff’s motion be
granted; (2) the Commissioner’s motion be denied; (3) the Commissioner’s final decision should
be vacated; and (4) this matter should be remanded for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 17.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired.
See Dkt. No. 17. Upon review for clear error, Judge Stewart’s R&R is accepted and will be
adopted. See FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED;
5. This matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Stewart’s R&R.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment
accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:23-cv-01517-AJB-DJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 2