The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EDLOECC #T:R ONIC ALLY FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 7/10/2 020
THEODORE ROOSEVELT BROWN, JR.
Plaintiff,
19-CV-4935 (VEC) (KNF)
-against-
ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Theodore Roosevelt Brown, Jr. brings this action pursuant to §§ 205(g) and
1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (“the Act”) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),
seeking review of the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).
Compl. (Dkt. 1). The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkts. 17, 21).
On June 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Fox issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be granted, that the Commissioner’s motion be denied, and
that the case be remanded for further proceedings. (Dkt. 21). Neither party filed objections. For
the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, Defendant’s cross-motion is DENIED,
and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Judge Fox’s R&R.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing final decisions of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), courts
“conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is substantial
evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision and if the
correct legal standards have been applied.” McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260, 264–65 (2d Cir. 2008)). “‘Substantial evidence’ is
‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a district 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). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection
has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record.” King v. Greiner, No. 02-CV-5810, 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,
2009) (citation omitted); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169
(S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Careful review of Judge Fox’s R&R reveals that there is no clear error in its conclusions.
As the R&R explains, the Administrative Law Judge violated the treating physician rule when he
discounted Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s mental health in favor of a
non-treating non-specialist’s report merely because the psychiatrist’s report was in a “check off”
format; the ALJ otherwise provided only a conclusory explanation for giving the report no
weight. R&R at 12–16. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in full.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED. Defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. This case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation.
Because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see R&R at 16, Defendant’s failure to file
2
adequate objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v.
Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all open motions and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 10, 2020 VALERIE CAPRONI
New York, NY United States District Judge