United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.
Tilves (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying her application for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”). Pending before the Court is the parties
Joint Stipulation, filed in lieu of separate cross-motions
for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. 14. On December 20, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
Plaintiff's motion be denied and the Commissioner's
motion be granted.
reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and
directs the entry of judgment as recommended.
filed for DIB on July 8, 2013, alleging disability on the
basis of various ailments including spinal stenosis,
spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, chronic pain, sleep disorder,
and dizziness from medication, with an onset date for her
disability of March 23, 2012. Doc. 10 at 173-74, 197. The
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied her
application on August 29, 2013 on the grounds that her
medical conditions were not severe enough to render her
unable to work. Id. at 106, 109. After timely
requesting a hearing, Plaintiff appeared before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on February 24,
2015. Id. at 36-96, 126. On June 25, 2015, the ALJ
confirmed the denial of benefits, finding that Plaintiff was
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act
for the period of March 23, 2012 through June 25, 2015.
Id. at 22-35. Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's
decision to the Social Security Appeals Counsel, which denied
Plaintiff's request for review on December 28, 2016.
Id. at 1. Plaintiff filed the instant action on
February 3, 2017. Doc. 1. On May 10, 2017, Judge Parker
directed the parties to submit a Joint Stipulation in lieu of
motions for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 9. On September
7, 2017, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation. Doc.
December 20, 2017, Judge Parker issued her R&R,
recommending that judgment be entered in favor of the
Commissioner. R&R at 12. Specifically, Judge Parker found
that the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff was not
disabled was supported by substantial evidence. Id.
Parker noted that objections, if any, would be due fourteen
days from service of the R&R and that failure to timely
object would preclude later appellate review of any order of
judgment entered. Id. at 12-13. Neither the
Plaintiff, nor the Commissioner filed objections. They have
therefore waived their right to object to the R & R.
See Dow Jones & Co. v. Real- Time Analysis &
News, Ltd., No. 14 Civ. 131 (JMF) (GWG), 2014 WL
5002092, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2014) (citing Frank v.
Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Caidor v.
Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
Standard of Review
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).
Parties may raise “specific, ”
“written” objections to the report and
recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being
served with a copy.” Id.; see also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A district court reviews de
novo those portions of the report and recommendation to
which timely and specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); see also DeLeon v. Strack, 234
F.3d 84, 87 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Male
Juvenile (95-CR-1074), 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)).
The district court may adopt those parts of the report and
recommendation to which no party had timely objected,
provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F.Supp.2d 804, 811 .
Court has carefully reviewed Judge Parker's thorough and
well-reasoned R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the
pleadings is GRANTED.
parties' failure to file written objections precludes
appellate review of this decision. PSG Poker, LLC v.
DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 Civ. 1104 (DLC), 2008 WL 3852051,
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008) (citing United States v.
Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)).
Clerk of Court is respectfully ...