ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), dated October 15, 2013 (Doc. #25), on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). (Doc. #16). Because plaintiff's affirmation in opposition to defendant's motion affirmatively urges the Court to vacate and reverse the Commissioner's decision (Doc. #23), Judge Davison treated plaintiff's opposition as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and recommended the Court grant plaintiff's motion and deny defendant's motion.
Subsequent to the filing of the R&R, plaintiff filed a motion for an order "foregoing further administrative proceedings and rule on the plaintiff's filing as a dispositive motion urging the Court to vacate and reverse." (Doc. #27).
The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case. For the following reasons, the Court (i) adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, (ii) denies defendant's motion, (iii) deems plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion to be a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and grants plaintiff's motion to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four, and (iv) denies plaintiff's motion to forego further administrative proceedings.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific[, ] written, " and submitted within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Insofar as a report and recommendation deals with a dispositive motion, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which timely objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zon , 573 F.Supp.2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Nelson v. Smith , 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). The clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. Ortiz v. Barkley , 558 F.Supp.2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Neither party objected to Judge Davison's thorough and well-reasoned R&R.
The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise.
Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.
Plaintiff's affirmation in opposition to defendant's motion is deemed to be a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and is GRANTED to the extent that the case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four.
Plaintiff's motion for an order "foregoing further administrative proceedings and rule on the plaintiff's filing as a dispositive motion urging the ...