Hallock v. Commissioner of Social Security
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 14 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Commissioner's determination is affirmed, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 5/12/17. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
STANLEY LAW OFFICES, LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff
215 Burnet Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13203
STEPHANIE VISCELLI, ESQ.
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL – REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
JEREMY A. LINDEN, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by William Hallock
(“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), is the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings be denied, that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be
granted, that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits be affirmed, and that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 14.) Objections to the Report and
Recommendation have not been filed, and the time in which to do so has expired. (Dkt. No. 14,
at 16; see generally Docket Sheet.)
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); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is made to a
report and recommendation, the Court subjects that report and recommendation to only a clearerror review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When
performing a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker,
94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (“I am permitted to adopt those
sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those
sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Carter’s
thorough Report and Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report and
Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 14.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination is AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: May 12, 2017
Syracuse, New York
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
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?