Dodwell v. Astrue
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER: It is ordered that the # 16 Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Therefore the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the Complaint filed by David C. Dodwell is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Neal P. McCurn on 6/14/2011. (jmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAVID C. DODWELL,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Legal Services of Central New York, Inc.
Attorney for Plaintiff
472 S. Salina Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
Christopher Cadin, Esq.
Social Security Administration
Attorneys for Defendant
Office of Regional General Counsel
26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
Dennis J. Canning, Esq.
Elizabeth D. Rothstein, Esq.
Maria P. Fragassi Santangelo, Esq.
NEAL P. McCURN, Senior U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM - DECISION AND ORDER
This is an action brought by plaintiff David C. Dodwell (“Dodwell”)
seeking review of the final decision of the defendant Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Dodwell’s claim for disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits.
Currently before the court for consideration is a Report and Recommendation
(“Report-Recommendation”) (Doc. No. 16) prepared on January 6, 2011 by the
Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge (“MJ Baxter”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(d) of the Northern District of
New York, affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing the
complaint. On January 20, 2011, Dodwell filed a timely objection to the ReportRecommendation (Doc. No. 17).
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); 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
MJ Baxter has submitted a comprehensive and well-reasoned ReportRecommendation for the court’s review. The court has considered plaintiff’s
objections to the Report-Recommendation and finds them unavailing, and a
reiteration of his original arguments. After thoroughly reviewing the ReportRecommendation for clear error, the court finds none. Accordingly, the ReportRecommendation issued by MJ Baxter is hereby approved and adopted in its
June 14, 2011
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?