Hartley v. Kijakazi

Filing 20

ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION: that the Report & Recommendation is Accepted; that Plaintiff's motion is Denied; that the Commissioner's motion is Granted; that the Commissioner's decision is Affirmed; that Plaintiff's complaint is Dismissed; and that the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment accordingly, and close the file.Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 03/26/2024. (hmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------MICHAEL H.,
Plaintiff,
-v-

6:22-CV-1322

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH
HILLER, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A
Amherst, NY 14226

JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

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

FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ.
Special Ass’t U.S. Attorney

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge

ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On December 9, 2022, plaintiff Michael H. 1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action
seeking review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1. Along
with his complaint, plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3.
The case was assigned directly to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley
Dancks, who granted plaintiff’s IFP Application. Dkt. No. 6. But because
plaintiff did not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
the matter was later assigned to this Court, Dkt. No. 4, and then referred
back to Judge Dancks for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. No. 7.
Thereafter, the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative
Record, Dkt. No. 8, and the parties briefed the matter in accordance with
General Order 18, which provides that an appeal taken from the
Commissioner’s denial of benefits is treated as if the parties have filed
cross-motions for a judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 11, 15, 16.

1 In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference’s

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this
District, only the first name and last initial of plaintiff will be mentioned in this opinion.
-2-

On March 1, 2024, Judge Dancks recommended by R&R that plaintiff’s
motion be denied, the Commissioner’s motion be granted, the Commissioner’s
final decision be affirmed, and that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. Dkt.
No. 17. Plaintiff has filed objections, Dkt. No. 18, which have been fully
briefed, Dkt. No. 19. Broadly speaking, plaintiff’s objections assert that the
ALJ committed several errors, his conclusions are inadequately explained,
and his findings are unsupported by the record. Dkt. No. 18 at 10–24.
Upon de novo review, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff’s objections read an awful lot like a principal
brief on appeal; i.e., his arguments are focused directly on various things the
ALJ allegedly did wrong rather than how the R&R’s findings or conclusions
are somehow erroneous. But this step in the review process is focused on the
R&R itself. See, e.g., In re GEICO Customer Data Breach Litig., –F. Supp.
3d–, 2023 WL 5524105, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2023) (“Objections must be
specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge’s
proposal.”).
With that basic principle in mind, plaintiff’s objections must be rejected
for substantially the reasons set forth in the Commissioner’s response. Dkt.
No. 19. As the Commissioner points out, plaintiff’s arguments about the ALJ
were already presented to, and carefully considered by, Judge Dancks. In the
absence of any good reason to second-guess the findings and conclusions in
-3-

the R&R, the Court declines to reanalyze those same issues in detail. It is
enough to say that under either standard—de novo or clear error—the Court
is satisfied with the R&R’s determinations. Further, to the extent that
plaintiff has offered new arguments about the ALJ in his objections, these
claims involve errors made on a cold record. Plaintiff was in possession of
that record as part of the briefing. He therefore could have, and should have,
presented those arguments to Judge Dancks in the first instance.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED;
3. The Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED;
4. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and
5. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter
a judgment accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2024
Utica, New York.

-4-