Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER. The Court hereby ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 16 , is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 13 , is DENIED. The Co urt further ORDERS that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 15 , is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1 , is DISMISSED. The Court further ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci on 8/30/2024. (mab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TINA W.,
Plaintiff,
v.

5:23-cv-00839 (AMN/TWD)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

OFFICE OF PETER W. ANTONOWICZ
148 West Dominick Street
Rome, New York 13440
Attorneys for Plaintiff

PETER W. ANTONOWICZ,
ESQ.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorneys for Defendant

FERGUS J. KAISER

Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff Tina W.1 commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her application for a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance

1

In accordance with the local practice of this Court, Plaintiff’s last name has been abbreviated to
protect her privacy.

Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act (“Complaint”). Dkt.
No. 1.2
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, who,
on July 31, 2024, recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, Dkt. No. 13, grant the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No.
15, and affirm the Commissioner’s decision (“Report-Recommendation”).

Dkt. No. 16.

Magistrate Judge Dancks advised that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days
within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation
within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id. at 19-20. Neither party has filed any
objections to the Report-Recommendation and the time for filing objections has expired.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation

that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. See Petersen, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 229 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). “When
performing such 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.’” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 6:21-CV-01138 (MAD/TWD), 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023)

2

Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
2

(quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-CV-0367 (GTS/WBC), 2017 WL 5484663, at
*1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)). After appropriate review, “the court 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).
III.

DISCUSSION
Because neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court

reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
Magistrate Judge Dancks concluded that the Commissioner’s decision complied with the
relevant legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence. Dkt. No. 16 at 19; see also id.
at 9-19. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Dancks first concluded that the Administrative Law Judge
appropriately assessed the medical opinion evidence from Plaintiff’s treating sources in the context
of the overall record.

Id. at 9-15 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a)-(c), 416.920c(a)-(c)).

Magistrate Judge Dancks also concluded the Administrative Law Judge properly assessed
Plaintiff’s own statements regarding her symptoms and limitations in the context of the other
evidence in the record, and that it was proper for the Administrative Law Judge to find Plaintiff’s
statements were “not fully supported.” Id. at 15-19. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Dancks for the reasons set forth in the Report-Recommendation. See, e.g., Warren v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., No. 3:15-CV-1185 (GTS/WBC), 2016 WL 7223338, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016)
(“When applying the substantial evidence test to a finding that a plaintiff was not disabled, the
Court will not reweigh the evidence presented at the administrative hearing, ... nor will it determine
whether [the applicant] actually was disabled. [Rather], [a]bsent an error of law by the Secretary,
[a] court must affirm her decision if there is substantial evidence [in the record] to support it”)
(citations and internal quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL

3

7238947 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016); see also Montaque v. Astrue, No. 5:07-CV-0749 (VEB), 2010
WL 1186515, at *10-11 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2010) (findings plaintiff’s statements were “not fully
supported by objective medical evidence”).
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error, and found none, the Court
adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 16, is ADOPTED in its entirety;

and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 13, is DENIED;
and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 15, is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2024
Albany, New York

4