Roach v. Astrue

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's May 20, 2013 14 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. That the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Roach's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 9/30/2013. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
MEGAN WINIFRED ROACH,
Plaintiff,

5:12-cv-992
(GLS/ATB)

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
_________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Olinsky Law Group
300 S. State Street
5th Floor, Suite 520
Syracuse, NY 13202
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261
STEVEN P. CONTE
Regional Chief Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge

KAREN S. SOUTHWICK, ESQ.

PETER W. JEWETT
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Megan Winifred Roach challenges defendant Commissioner
of Social Security’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking review under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) filed May 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Andrew T.
Baxter recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and
Roach’s complaint be dismissed.1 (R&R, Dkt. No. 14.) Pending are
Roach’s objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 15.) For the reasons that follow,
the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
II. Background2
On November 3, 2009, Roach filed applications for DIB and SSI
under the Social Security Act. (R&R at 1.) After her applications were
denied, Roach requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge

1

The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and
familiarity therewith is presumed. (Dkt. No. 14.)
2

The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and
Judge Baxter. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 14; see also Admin. Tr., Dkt. No. 9.)
2

(ALJ), which was held on December 8, 2010. (Id.) On February 3, 2011,
the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became
the Commissioner’s final determination upon the Social Security
Administration Appeals Council’s denial of review. (Id. at 2.)
Roach commenced the present action by filing her complaint on June
19, 2012 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination.
(Compl.) After receiving the parties’ briefs, Judge Baxter issued an R&R
recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (See
generally R&R.)
III. Standard of Review
By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer social
security appeals to magistrate judges for proposed findings and
recommendations as to disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B);
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 40.1, 72.3(d); General Order No. 18. Before entering final
judgment, this court reviews report and recommendation orders in cases it
has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party properly objects to a specific
element of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, this court
reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v.
N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3,
3

*5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In cases where no party has filed an
objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits
the same papers and arguments already considered by the magistrate
judge, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *4-5.
IV. Discussion
Roach purports to object to the R&R on three grounds. First, she
asserts that Judge Baxter improperly found that there was no gap in the
medical evidence such that a source statement from treating physician
Gene Bailey was necessary for the ALJ to make a disability determination.
(Dkt. No. 15 at 1-2.) Second, she objects to Judge Baxter’s
recommendation that the residual functional capacity determination was
properly supported in the record. (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, she objects to Judge
Baxter’s conclusion that the ALJ did not err in relying on the MedicalVocational Guidelines to determine that there is other work which Roach
could perform. (Id. at 3-4.) The substance of all three arguments,
however, was previously raised in Roach’s brief and considered and
rejected by Judge Baxter. (Dkt. No. 12 at 10-12, 16-19, 23-24; R&R at 911, 16-32.) Roach’s “objections,” therefore, are general and do not warrant
4

de novo review. See Almonte, 2006 WL 149049 at *4. The court, having
carefully reviewed the record, finds no clear error in the R&R and accepts
and adopts it in its entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s May 20, 2013
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and
Roach’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 30, 2013
Albany, New York

5