United States District Court, S.D. New York
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 April 9, 2014 (Doc. #17), on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). (Doc. #11). Although plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion, he did not address the arguments raised therein. (Doc. #14). Judge Davison nonetheless recommended the Court deny defendant's motion and remand this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four.
The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case.
For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, denies defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remands the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four.
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).
Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. #18), asserting essentially the same claims he made in his complaint. (Doc. #2). Defendant did not object to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Davison's thorough and well-reasoned R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise.
The R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.
The case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four.
The Clerk is instructed to enter Judgment accordingly and close this case.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See ...