Gamble v. Colvin
ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 11, 2017 Order and Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. The Court further ORDERS that Defendant's decision is AFFIRMED. The Court further ORDERS that Defendant's # 16 motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 9/29/2017. [Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail. ] (nmk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LAKENA N. GAMBLE o/b/o Z.L.T.,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
LAKENA N. GAMBLE
Syracuse, New York 13205
Plaintiff pro se
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL
COUNSEL, REGION II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
Attorneys for Defendant
JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, ESQ.
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
Plaintiff filed this action, on behalf of her son Z.L.T., against Defendant pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), 1383(c)(3). See Dkt. No. 1. Although the Court provided her with several
opportunities to do so, Plaintiff did not file a brief. See Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 15. Defendant, however,
did file a brief, see Dkt. No. 16, as well as the Social Security Administrative Record, see Dkt. No.
In an Order and Report-Recommendation dated September 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Dancks recommended that this Court affirm Defendant's decision, grant Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, and dismiss the complaint. See, generally, Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff did not
file any objections to Magistrate Judge Dancks despite being advised that her failure to do so within
the required time frame would preclude appellate review. See id. at 27 & n.5 (citations omitted).
When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court
reviews that report-recommendations for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik,
No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote
omitted). After conducting its review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, despite Plaintiff's failure to file a brief,
Magistrate Judge Dancks, pursuant to General Order 18, considered the merits of this matter and
"examined the record to determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and reached
a decision based on substantial evidence" and, in addition, in light of Plaintiff pro se status,
consider[ed] . . . the merits . . . with the special solicitude that the Second Circuit mandates for pro
se litigants." See Dkt. No. 19 at 15-16.
Having completed its review of Magistrate Judge Dancks' very thorough analysis of the
merits of Plaintiff's claims and finding no error or manifest injustice in either her analysis or
recommendations with regard to those claims, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 11, 2017 Order and ReportRecommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court
ORDERS that Defendant's decision is AFFIRMED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 16, is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close
this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2017
Syracuse, New York
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?