Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TIFFANY N. B.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
5:24-cv-1206 (BKS/ML)
Appearances:
For Plaintiff:
Howard D. Olinsky
Olinsky Law Group
250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210
Syracuse, NY 13202
For Defendant:
Kristina D. Cohn
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits.
(Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a
Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); Local Rule 72.3(e). On November 17, 2025, after
reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 15), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No.
9), Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
Case 5:24-cv-01206-BKS-ML Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 3

2
motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings be denied, and that the matter be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner Pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings, (Dkt. No. 16). Magistrate Judge
Lovric advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had “fourteen days within
which to file written objections” to the Report-Recommendation and that “failure to object to
th[e] report within fourteen days will preclude appellate review.” (Dkt. No. 16, at 18 (citing
Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. No
objections were filed.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v.
Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and
recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear
error. Id. Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-
Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and
found none.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is
ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is
GRANTED, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and it is further
Case 5:24-cv-01206-BKS-ML Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2025
Syracuse, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01206-BKS-ML Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 3