# Maloney v. Saul

> District Court, E.D. New York · January 24, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10303679

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 24, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10303679

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X
JOSEPH MALONEY,

Plaintiff,
ADOPTION ORDER
-against- 2:16-cv-03899 (ADS) (GRB)

ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,

Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------X

SPATT, District Judge.
On July 13, 2016 plaintiff Joseph Maloney (the “Plaintiff”), commenced this appeal
pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 et seq. (the “Act”), challenging a final
determination by the defendant, Andrew M. Saul, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the “Defendant” or the “Commissioner”), that he is ineligible to receive Social
Security disability insurance benefits.
On January 12, 2018, the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion for a
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), and remanding the Plaintiff’s claim for further
administrative proceedings.
On August 9, 2019, the Plaintiff moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b).
On October 17, 2019, the Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Gary
R. Brown for a recommendation as to whether the motion for attorney’s fees should be granted,
and if so, what the award should be.
On January 7, 2020, Judge Brown issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the
Court deny the Plaintiff’s motion as untimely.
Both parties have informed the Court that they have no objections to the R&R.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court
has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its
result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error).

Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court denies the Plaintiff’s Section
406(b) motion for attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 24, 2020

___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_____
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10303679. Public record. Not legal advice.