Schneider v. Colvin

Filing 17

DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 15 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Commissioner's determination is affirmed, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/19/16. (lmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
CONNELLY ANDREW SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:15-CV-0590
(GTS/WBC)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

BINDER & BINDER
Counsel for Plaintiff
60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 520
New York, NY 10165

CHARLES E. BINDER, ESQ.

U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL
– REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278

BENIL ABRAHAM, ESQ.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Connelly Andrew
Schneider (“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the
Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), are (1) the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, recommending
that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that Defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings be granted, and (2) Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
I.

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Generally, Plaintiff makes three arguments in objection to Magistrate Judge Carter’s

Report and Recommendation. First, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter erred in finding
that the ALJ properly weighed the medical opinion evidence (because the ALJ improperly
adopted only certain portions of the opinion from treating physician, Dr. Garber, and improperly
relied on the contradictory opinion from one-time consultative examiner, Dr. Ganesh). (Dkt. No.
16 at 2-5.) Second, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter erred in finding that the ALJ
properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility (because the ALJ’s finding was not supported by
substantial evidence in the ALJ’s analysis). (Id. at 2, 5-8.) Third, and finally, Plaintiff argues
that Magistrate Judge Carter erred in finding that the ALJ properly relied on the MedicalVocational Guidelines at step five (because the ALJ was required to obtain vocational expert
testimony based on Plaintiff’s nonexertional limitations). (Id. at 2, 9-10).
II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
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 recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] . . . to which objection is

2

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “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, 9-CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting Farid v. Bouey,
554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III.

ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections simply reiterate arguments presented in his

initial brief. (Compare Dkt. No. 16 with Dkt. No. 10.) Therefore, the Court reviews the
Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation for clear error only. After carefully
reviewing the relevant filings in this action, including Magistrate Judge Carter’s thorough Report
and Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report and Recommendation.
(Dkt. No. 15.) Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the
facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Id.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination is AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: September 19, 2016
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge

3