Schultz v. Kijakazi

Filing 18

DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14 ) is DENIED. The Commissioner's motion f or judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15 ) is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision denying disability insurance benefits is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 9/24/2024. (sal )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
FREDERICK C. S., JR.,
Plaintiff,

1:23-CV-0723
(GTS/TWD)

-vsCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

HILLER COMERFORD INJURY &
DISABILITY LAW
Counsel for Plaintiff
6000 North Bailey Avenue - Suite 1A
Amherst, New York 14226
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for Defendant
Office of the General Counsel
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235

JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

JASON P. PECK, ESQ.

HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, filed on August 30, 2024, recommending that the
Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits be affirmed, and Plaintiff’s
Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 17.) 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 Dancks’ thorough

Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 As
a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, the Commissioner’s
decision denying disability insurance benefits is affirmed, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15)
is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability insurance benefits is
AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: September 24, 2024
Syracuse, New York

1

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).
2