Prosser v. Colvin
Filing
17
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 15 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Commissioner's determination is affirmed, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/23/16. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
HEAVEN DAY PROSSER,
on behalf of S.M.T., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-CV-1202
(GTS/WBC)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
LEGAL AID SOC’Y
OF NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK
Counsel for Plaintiff
40 New Street
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
MARY M. WITHINGTON, ESQ.
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL
– REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
JASON P. PECK, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Heaven Day Prosser
(“Plaintiff”) on behalf of her son, S.M.T., against the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), are (1) the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter,
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and (2) Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 15-16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted.
I.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Generally, Plaintiff makes two arguments in objection to Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report
and Recommendation. First, Plaintiff argues that objective medical evidence of record supports a
finding that S.M.T.’s asthma meets or equals Listing 103.03. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2-4.) Second,
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to find that S.M.T. had (1) a marked limitation in the domain
of interacting and relating with others (because his asthma and allergies severely preclude his
ability to play with other children in all outdoor activities and in indoor activities requiring
extended physical exertion), and (2) a marked limitation in the domain of health and physical
well-being (based on his frequent visits to doctors and school absences). (Id. at 4-6.)
II.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation, but they must be “specific written objections,” and must be submitted
“[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] . . . to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “Where, however, an
objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original
arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Caldwell v.
Crosset, 9-CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting Farid v. Bouey,
554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
III.
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections merely restate arguments presented in her initial
brief. (Compare Dkt. No. 16 with Dkt. No. 10.) Therefore, the Court reviews the portions of
Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation addressed in Plaintiff’s objections for
clear error only. After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, including Magistrate
Judge Carter’s thorough Report and Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the
Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 15.) Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper
standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Id.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination is AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: June 23, 2016
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
3
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?