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)

Download PDF
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. ยง 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?