Montanye v. Astrue

Filing 19

DECISION and ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on January 18, 2013. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JASON MONTANYE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

5:11-CV-1245 (LEK/ATB)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

DECISION and ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on November

16, 2012 by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(d) of the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 16 (“ReportRecommendation”). After fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file
to the undersigned, including the Objections by Plaintiff Jason Montanye (“Plaintiff”), which were
filed on December 3, 2012.1 Dkt. No. 17 (“Objections”).
The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.
For a detailed account of this background, reference is made to the Report-Recommendation, which
incorporates both parties’ statements of facts. In his Report-Recommendation, Judge Baxter
recommended that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security disability benefits
be affirmed in full. Report-Rec. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the ReportRecommendation in its entirety and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).

1

Defendant has since filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. Dkt. No. 18.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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.” Farid v.
Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d
672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Brown v. Peters, No.
95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). “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)(1).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises three general objections to the adoption of the Report-Recommendation.

Plaintiff first contends that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the residual functional
capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence should be rejected. Obj. at 1-3.
Plaintiff next argues that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the ALJ’s credibility
determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record should be rejected. Id. at 3.
Finally, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge’s Step 5 recommendation should be rejected.
Id. at 3.
These general objections are substantively identical to the arguments raised by Plaintiff in
his Brief. See generally Dkt. No. 12 (“Plaintiff’s Brief”). Because Plaintiff has failed to raise any
new arguments or identify any potential defects in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning beyond its
failure to yield a recommended outcome in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court reviews the Report2

Recommendation in its entirety for clear error. Farid, 554 F. Supp. 2d at 307. Upon a thorough
review of the Report-Recommendation and the record before it, the Court finds no such error. As a
result, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all
parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

January 18, 2013
Albany, New York

3