Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines' June 12, 2014 17 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. That the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Wilson's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 9/29/2014. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
JEFFREY C. WILSON,
Plaintiff,

6:13-cv-643
(GLS/ESH)

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Law Office of Steven R. Dolson
126 North Salina Street, Suite 3B
Syracuse, NY 13202
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
Syracuse, NY 13261

MAGGIE W. MCOMBER, ESQ.

MICHELLE L. CHRIST
JOSHUA L. KERSHNER
Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys

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
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction
Plaintiff Jeffrey C. Wilson challenges defendant Commissioner of
Social Security’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), seeking
review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) filed June 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Earl S.
Hines recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Dkt.
No. 17.) Pending are Wilson’s objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 18.) For
the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
II. Background1
On December 9, 2007, Wilson filed an application for DIB under the
Social Security Act. (Tr.2 at 121, 291-95.) After his application was denied,
Wilson requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ),
which was held on January 5, 2010 and May 20, 2010. (Id. at 66-118, 14448.) On July 28, 2010, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision and found
that Wilson was not disabled. (Id. at 123-37.) At Wilson’s request, the
Appeals Council remanded the decision to the ALJ to evaluate the severity
and effects of Wilson’s obesity and further evaluate the medical opinion
1

The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and Judge Hines. ( See
generally Dkt. Nos. 10, 14, 17.)
2

Page references preceded by “Tr.” are to the Administrative Transcript. (Dkt. No. 8.)

2

evidence of record. (Id. at 140-41.) A second administrative hearing was
held on February 29, 2012. (Id. at 28-53.) On March 9, 2012, the ALJ
issued an unfavorable decision again denying the benefits. ( Id. at 8-27.)
That decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the
Appeals Council denied Wilson’s request for review. (Id. at 1-6.)
Wilson commenced the present action by filing a complaint on June
5, 2013, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination.
(Compl.) After receiving the parties’ briefs, Judge Hines issued an R&R
recommending the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (See generally
Dkt. No. 17.)
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.
3

N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *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
Wilson purports to object to the R&R on four grounds. (See generally
Dkt. No. 18.) He asserts that the ALJ failed to properly: (1) follow the
treating physician rule; (2) evaluate his credibility; (3) assess the effects of
his obesity; and (4) assess his need for an assistive device. ( Id. at 1-4.)
The substance of these arguments, however, was previously raised in
Wilson’s brief and considered and rejected by Judge Hines. (Dkt. No. 10 at
3-12; Dkt. No. 17 at 7-23.) Wilson’s “objections,” therefore, are general
and do not warrant 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
4

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines’ June 12, 2014
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and
Wilson’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 29, 2014
Albany, New York

5