From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AULL v. ASTRUE

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jul 10, 2008
5:05-CV-1196 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2008)

Opinion

5:05-CV-1196 (LEK/DEP).

July 10, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 27, 2008, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 12).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Peebles's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

AULL v. ASTRUE

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jul 10, 2008
5:05-CV-1196 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2008)
Case details for

AULL v. ASTRUE

Case Details

Full title:GUSTAVUS A. AULL, III, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jul 10, 2008

Citations

5:05-CV-1196 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2008)

Citing Cases

Rowe v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

See Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1554 n.4 (2d Cir. 1983) ("The vocational expert is just that, a…

Owens v. Astrue

Even assuming the RFC analysis was proper, the hypotheticals posed to the expert were vague and did not…