UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 27, 2012
MARY A. NESHEIWAT, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial review of Defendant's final decision denying benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant submitted his answer on December 30, 2010, and submitted the administrative record on January 3, 2011. See Dkt. Nos. 8-9. Plaintiff filed a brief in support of her complaint on February 15, 2011, see Dkt. No. 11; and Defendant filed his brief in opposition on April 1, 2011, see Dkt. No. 14. On July 13, 2011, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report-Recommendation, in which he recommended that the Court affirm Defendant's decision and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 16.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court may decide to accept, reject or modify the recommendations therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court conducts a de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party objects. See Pizzaro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). "'"If, however, the party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error."'" Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quoting [Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301] at 306 [(N.D.N.Y. 2008)] (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007))). Finally, even if the parties file no objections, the court must ensure that the face of the record contains no clear error. See Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation omitted).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation in light of Plaintiff's objections and, despite Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, concludes that Magistrate Judge Baxter correctly found that the ALJ had applied the appropriate legal standards and that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's July 13, 2011 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's decision is AFFIRMED; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.