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, )

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