Wood v. Colvin
Filing
18
DECISION & ORDER accepting and adopting # 16 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 12/5/16. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
JAMES WOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
6:15-CV-1030
(GTS/WBC)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF PETER W. ANTONOWICZ
Counsel for Plaintiff
148 West Dominick Street
Rome, NY 13440
PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, 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
JASON P. PECK, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by James Wood
(“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), are (1) 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, and that Defendant’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings be granted, and (2) Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(Dkt. Nos. 16,17.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report and Recommendation is accepted
and adopted in its entirety.
I.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff essentially argues that the Court should reject Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report
and Recommendation that the ALJ properly relied on the opinion of a consultative examiner.
(Dkt. No. 17 at 1-5.) Plaintiff argues that, before assigning his case to the ALJ, the Social
Security Administration failed to follow its own regulations by obtaining an opinion of
Plaintiff’s abilities and limitations from a consultative examiner without attempting to obtain any
information necessary to complete the record from Plaintiff’s treating psychologist. (Id.)
Plaintiff further argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s analysis “essentially asserts that following
the regulations is optional with regard to the hiring of consultative examiners.” (Id. at 1.)
II.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
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). “A judge of the court shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] . . . to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “Where,
however, an objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his
original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.”
2
Caldwell v. Crosset, 9-CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting
Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Plaintiff objections largely reiterate arguments presented in
Plaintiff’s initial brief. (Compare Dkt. No. 17 with Dkt. No. 13.) To the extent that Plaintiff
raises specific objections to Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation, the Court
reviews these portions of the Report and Recommendation de novo. After carefully reviewing
the relevant filings in this action, including Magistrate Judge Carter’s thorough Report and
Recommendation, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter that the Commissioner did not
err by obtaining an opinion from a consultative examiner, and the ALJ properly evaluated and
relied on the same. (Dkt. No. 16.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) 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: December 5, 2016
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
3
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?