Tuttle v. Colvin

Filing 15

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on July 23, 2015. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BARBARA TUTTLE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

3:14-CV-0759 (LEK/TWD)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on June 8,
2015, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 14 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an
objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the
magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear
error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid
v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No.
06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (“[E]ven a pro se party’s
objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular
findings in the magistrate’s proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by
simply relitigating a prior argument.”). “A [district] judge . . . 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).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court
has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to Sentence
Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Report-Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 14); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

July 23, 2015
Albany, NY

2