United States District Court, N.D. New York
CHARLES E. BINDER, ESQ., BINDER AND BINDER, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
JOANNE J. PENGELLY, ESQ., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL, REGION II, New York, New York.
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff commenced this action, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant filed her answer and the administrative record on February 7, 2013. See Dkt. Nos. 6-7. Plaintiff filed her motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 25, 2013, see Dkt. No. 9; and Defendant filed her motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 6, 2013, see Dkt. No. 13. On November 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Hummel issued his Report-Recommendation and Order in which he recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff's judgment on the pleadings and affirm Defendant's final decision. See Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff filed objections to these recommendations. See Dkt. No. 15.
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 Hummel's November 12, 2013 Report-Recommendation and Order in light of Plaintiff's objections. Having completed that review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hummel's conclusion that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly evaluated the medical opinion evidence, applied the correct legal standards, and reached a decision that was supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Hummel's finding that the ALJ did not engage in any conduct that would merit a remand. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's November 12, 2013 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 ...