Deyo Mejia v. Commissioner of Social Security
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 12 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 3/24/17. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TINA ANN DEYO MEJIA,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
OFFICE OF PETER M. MARGOLIS
Counsel for Plaintiff
7 Howard Street
Catskill, New York 12414
PETER M. MARGOLIS, ESQ.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
SIXTINA FERNANDEZ, ESQ.
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II
Counsel for Defendant or Commissioner
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
The above-captioned Social Security case comes to this Court following a ReportRecommendation by United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on March
1, 2017, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits be affirmed
and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 12.) Objections to the ReportRecommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally
Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge
Carter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation: Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the
facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts.1 As a result, the Report-Recommendation is
accepted and adopted in its entirety; the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits is
affirmed; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination denying Plaintiff benefits is
AFFIRMED, and the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: March 24, 2017
Syracuse, New York
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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?