Freedman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in its entirety. The Commissioner's 15 Notice of MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby GRANTED, Plaintiff's 17 Cross MOTION for judgment on the pleadings is hereby DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close this case. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 9/18/2015. (Barrett, C)

N CLERK'S OFFICE
U. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------x
JACK FREEDMAN,
Plaintiff,

* SEP 182015 *
BROOKLYN OFFICE
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

-against14-CV-2910 (SLT)( VMS)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------x
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
On May 8, 2014, plaintiff Jack Freedman ("Plaintiff') commenced this action against
Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"), appealing the
Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) The parties
cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
(Docs. 15-17.) The cross motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon for a
Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which was issued on August 20, 2015. (R&R, Aug. 20,
2015, Doe. 23.) The R&R recommends that the Commissioner's motion be granted, that
Plaintiffs motion be denied, and that judgment be entered in favor of the Commissioner.

(Id. at

1, 31.) The R&R specifically advised that "failure to file objections [to the R&R by September
2 5 2015] waives the right to appeal before the District Court as well as a higher appellate court."
(Id. at 31.) The date to file objections has long passed without any activity on the docket.
A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate
judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, when no objections are filed, many

courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town of
Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error on the face of the record. The
Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Magistrate Judge Scanlon's Report and Recommendation
dated August 20, 2015, is adopted in its entirety. (Doc. 23.) The Commissioner's motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 15) is hereby GRANTED, Plaintiff's cross-motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 17) is hereby DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
requested to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close this case.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sandra L. Townes
A

PA

United States District Judge
Dated:)S,
nf,jfi2O 15
Brooklyn, New York

2