Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendations. The Commissioner's decision is Affirmed and the Complaint is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 3/30/17. (rjb, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ RODNEY WILLIAM BELL, Plaintiff, v. 1:16-CV-0055 (BKS/ATB) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _____________________________________________ Appearances: Peter M. Margolius Office of Peter M. Margolius 7 Howard Street Catskill, NY 12414 For Plaintiff Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney Joshua L. Kershner, Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Office of Regional General Counsel Region II 26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 For Defendant Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Rodney William Bell filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income. Dkt. No. 1. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 3; Local Rule 73.2(d). On March 2, 2017, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, Dkt. Nos. 12, 17, and the Administrative Transcript, Dkt. No. 11, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 18, p. 18. Magistrate Judge Baxter advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had “14 days within which to file written objections” to the Report and that “failure to object to th[e] report within 14 days will preclude appellate review.” Id. (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e)). DISCUSSION The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Id. Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and found none. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further 2 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2017 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?