United States District Court, Southern District of New York
March 9, 2015
AMARILIS COSME RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of J.A.C.C., Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox (the “Report”), recommending that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. For the reasons stated below, the Report is adopted in its entirety.
This case was referred to Judge Fox on October 3, 2013. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se on behalf of her minor child JACC, filed the operative Amended Complaint in this action on October 29, 2013, seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying JACC’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. On March 24, 2014, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 9, 2015, Judge Fox issued the Report to which no objection was filed.
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)(C). The district court “may adopt those portions of the report to which no specific, written objection is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Adams v. New York State Dep't of Educ, 855 F.Supp.2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
The factual and legal bases underlying the Report are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety as the decision of the Court. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to close the motion at Docket No. 16, and to close this case. Because pro se Plaintiff has consented to electronic service, this Opinion and Order need not be mailed to her.