Canady v. Berryhill

Filing 16

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 15 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is affirmed, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/14/17. (lmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
ANGELA J. CANADY,
Plaintiff,

1:17-CV-0367
(GTS/WBC)

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

OFFICE OF STEPHEN J. MASTAITIS, JR.
Counsel for Plaintiff
1412 Route 9P
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866

STEPHEN J. MASTAITIS, ESQ.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL–REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, New York 10278

SUSAN J. REISS, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on October 4, 2017 recommending that
the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits be affirmed, and that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 15.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation
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 Report-

Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper legal standards, accurately
recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 15.) As a result, the
Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is affirmed, and Plaintiff’s
Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits
is AFFIRMED, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: November 14, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects the
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 and citations omitted).
2