Bliss v. Colvin

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM-DECISIION and ORDER - That Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's August 8, 2014 19 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety. That the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Bliss complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/3/2015. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
RICHARD ALLEN BLISS,
Plaintiff,

3:13-cv-1086
(GLS/CFH)

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Legal Services of Central New York
472 South Salina Street
Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261
Steven P. Conte
Regional Chief Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER CADIN, ESQ.

JASON P. PECK
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Richard Allen Bliss challenges defendant Commissioner of
Social Security’s denial of social security disability insurance benefits (DIB)
and supplemental security income (SSI), seeking review under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).1 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order
(R&R) filed August 8, 2014, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel
recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and Bliss’
complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 19.) Pending are Bliss’ objections to the
R&R. (Dkt. No. 20.) For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R
in its entirety.
II. Background2
On September 13, 2010, Bliss filed an application for DIB and SSI
under the Social Security Act. (Tr. 3 at 93-99, 100, 188-94, 195-200.) After
his application was denied, (id. at 27, 101-06), Bliss requested a hearing

1

42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) renders section 405(g) applicable to judicial review of SSI

claims.
2

The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and Judge Hummel. (Dkt.
No. 17 at 1-6; Dkt. No. 18 at 2; Dkt. No. 19 at 2.)
3

Page references preceded by “Tr.” are to the Administrative Transcript. (Dkt. No. 13.)

2

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on April 12,
2012, (id. at 21-23, 43-92). On May 10, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision
denying the requested relief, (id. at 24-42), which became the
Commissioner’s final determination upon the Social Security Administration
Appeals Council’s denial of review, (id. at 1-5).
Bliss commenced the present action by filing a complaint on
September 4, 2013, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s
determination. (See generally Compl.) After receiving the parties’ briefs,
Judge Hummel issued an R&R recommending dismissal of Bliss’
complaint. (Dkt. No. 19.)
III. Standard of Review
By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer social
security appeals to magistrate judges for proposed findings and
recommendations as to disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B);
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 40.1, 72.3(d); General Order No. 18. Before entering final
judgment, this court reviews report and recommendation orders in cases it
has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party properly objects to a specific
element of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, this court
reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v.
3

N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3,
*5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an
objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits
the same papers and arguments already considered by the magistrate
judge, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *4-5.
IV. Discussion
Bliss purports to object to the R&R on several grounds. (Dkt. No. 20
at 5-24.) First, he asserts that the ALJ erred in determining the severity of
his impairments. (Id. at 5-8.) Second, Bliss contends that the ALJ
improperly failed to develop the record by not re-contacting one of Bliss’
treating physicians. (Id. at 8-10.) Third, Bliss argues that the ALJ should
have given controlling weight to the opinion of one of his treating
physicians, and that the ALJ’s credibility determination with respect to Bliss’
own statements regarding his symptoms was flawed. (Id. at 11-13, 20-22.)
Next, Bliss asserts that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination
“is inaccurate, incomplete, and not supported by substantial evidence.” ( Id.
at 13-20.) Lastly, Bliss contends that the other alleged errors in the ALJ’s
analysis tainted the step five determination that there were a significant
4

number of jobs in the national economy that Bliss could perform. (Id. at 2224.)
The substance of these arguments, however, was previously raised
in Bliss’ initial memorandum of law and considered and rejected by Judge
Hummel. (Compare id. at 5-24, with Dkt. No. 17 at 10-25.) Bliss’
objections are, in fact, nearly identical to, and appear to be, for the most
part, copied directly from, the arguments raised in his original brief. He
makes only passing references to the R&R, and has not identified any
specific errors made by the magistrate judge. Instead, he reiterates his
assertions that the ALJ erred in his analysis. Bliss’ “objections,” therefore,
are general and do not warrant de novo review. See Gusky v. Astrue, 954
F. Supp. 2d 180, 184 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[W]hen the objections simply
reiterate previous arguments . . . the Court should review the report for
clear error.”); Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *4. The court, having carefully
reviewed the record, finds no clear error in the R&R and accepts and
adopts it in its entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s August 8,
5

2014 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 19) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and
Bliss’ complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 3, 2015
Albany, New York

6