United States District Court, N.D. New York
September 25, 2014
JAMES HARRISON, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
LACHMAN & GORTON, PETER A. GORTON, ESQ., Endicott, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL, COUNSEL, REGION II, TOMASINA DIGRIGOLI, ESQ., New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant.
FREDERICK J. SCULIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff commenced this action, seeking a review of the Commissioner's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant filed her answer and the administrative record on November 14, 2013. See Dkt. Nos. 8, 10. Plaintiff filed her brief on February 14, 2014, see Dkt. No. 13; and Defendant filed her brief on March 31, 2014, see Dkt. No. 14. On May 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hummel issued his Report-Recommendation and Order, in which he recommended that the Court affirm Defendant's final decision and deny Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 17 at 39. Plaintiff has filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 18.
When a party makes specific objections to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Trombley v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 20110 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Where a party makes only conclusory or general objections, however, the court reviews the report and recommendation for "clear error" only. See Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quotation omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may decide to accept, reject or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in light of Plaintiff's specific objections, primarily related to the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") treatment of, and reliance upon, the testimony of Dr. Goldman. Having completed that review, the Court finds that, as Magistrate Judge Hummel explained in his comprehensive analysis of the ALJ's decision, the ALJ thoroughly reviewed the medical evidence, applied the correct legal standards, and reached a decision that was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's May 20, 2014 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's decision is AFFIRMED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; 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.