Dodwell v. Astrue

Filing 21

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ================================================== DAVID C. DODWELL, Plaintiff, v. 5:10-CV-378 (NPM/ATB) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. _________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 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 Region II 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) 2 (internal quotations omitted) (citing Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y.2008)). 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 entirety. SO ORDERED. June 14, 2011 3

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?