Delgrosso v. Colvin

Filing 29

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 27 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hines; granting Commissioner's # 21 motion for judgment on the pleadings; denying Plaintiff's # 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirming the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/25/15. (lmw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________ MARY DELGROSSO, Plaintiff, 3:13-CV-1470 (GTS/ESH) v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ______________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LACHMAN, GORTON LAW GROUP Counsel for Plaintiff PO Box 89 1500 Endicott, NY 13761 PETER A. GORTON, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL-REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 ROBERT R. SCHRIVER, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this action filed by Mary Delgrosso (“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking disability benefits, are (1) the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 72.3(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and Plaintiff’s request to remand the ALJ’s unfavorable decision be denied, (2) Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28.) A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, but they must be “specific written” objections, and must be submitted “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommendations disposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “Where, however, an objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Caldwell v. Crosset, 2010 WL 2346330 at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]). Plaintiff’s objection contains only a conclusory assertion that the Report and Recommendation “errs by failing to determine that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was incorrect as set forth in the Plaintiff’s brief.” (Dkt. No. 28.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is conclusory and this Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action the Court can find no clear error in the Report and Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Hines employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 28.) ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hines’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: June 25, 2015 Syracuse, NY

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?