Colon-Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

DECISION & ORDER. The Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 18 , is ADOPTED; Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; the Commissioner's determination is AFFIRMED; and the Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 2/17/2016. (lah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
SULY COLON-SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.

5:14-CV-705 (TJM/DEP)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________
Thomas J. McAvoy,
United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
This action, brought pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act (“Act”), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeks review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. The action was
referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ReportRecommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation, dated January 25, 2016, proceeded as if both
parties had accompanied their briefs with a motion for judgment on the pleadings as
established by Northern District of New York General Order No. 8. After reviewing the
record and the parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Peebles found that substantial

1

evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision and recommended that the Court grant
the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation. When
objections to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a
“de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a
review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 19, are hereby OVERRULED. The ReportRecommendation, dkt. # 18, is hereby ADOPTED, and:
1.

The Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby GRANTED;

2.

The Commissioner’s determination is hereby AFFIRMED; and

3.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2016

2