United States District Court, N.D. New York
HENRY SCOTT, Auburn Correctional Facility, Auburn, New York, pro se, Plaintiff.
MONIKA K. CRAWFORD, ESQ., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL, REGION II, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant.
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff commenced this action on April 11, 2012. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant filed an answer on August 3, 2012. See Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff filed a reply on September 4, 2012. See Dkt. No. 13. Defendant filed a brief on October 18, 2012, see Dkt. No. 14; and Plaintiff filed a brief on November 30, 2012, see Dkt. No. 15. On September 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and deny Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 17 at 24. Plaintiff has filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 20.
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).
Given Plaintiff's pro se status and despite the conclusory and reiterative nature of his objections, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation. Despite Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Bianchini correctly found that the Administrative Law Judge ("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 Bianchini's September 12, 2013; Report and 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 the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of ...