Talyosef v. Comm�r of Soc. SEC.

── Talyosef v. Comm�r of Soc. SEC. ── Case No.: 24-3051-cv Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 30, 2026 Category: General 24-3051-cv Talyosef v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ‘SUMMARY ORDER’). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in 3 the City of New York, on the 30th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Caryn Talyosef, 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 15 16 v. 24-3051 17 18 Commissioner of Social Security, 19 20 Defendant-Appellee. 21 22 _____________________________________ 23 24  1 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Caryn Talyosef, pro se, 2 Norwich, CT. 3 4 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Fergus Kaiser, Special 5 Assistant U.S. Attorney, 6 Baltimore, MD (Suzanne 7 M. Haynes, Acting 8 Associate General 9 Counsel, on the brief), 10 Social Security 11 Administration, for Marc 12 H. Silverman, Acting 13 United States Attorney for 14 the District of Connecticut. 15 16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 17 Connecticut (Spector, M.J.). 18 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 19 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 20 Caryn Talyosef appeals from the district court’s judgment that reversed the 21 Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her claim for disability benefits and 22 remanded the matter to the agency for a rehearing pursuant to sentence four of section 23 405(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). A magistrate judge, presiding in 24 the district court for all purposes on the parties’ consent, granted the Commissioner’s 25 motion to vacate and remand for further administrative proceedings, while denying 26 Talyosef’s motion to reverse and remand for the calculation of benefits. 27 This Court reviews district court remands pursuant to the fourth sentence of  1 § 405(g) for abuse of discretion. Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377, 384–85 (2d Cir. 2004). 2 The fourth sentence of § 405(g) of the Social Security Act permits district courts to affirm, 3 reverse, or modify a decision of the Commissioner “with or without remanding the cause 4 for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C § 405(g). A remand for a rehearing is proper