Griffin v. Astrue

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines' September 18, 2014 18 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. That the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Griffin's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/27/2014. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
JOEY GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,

7:12-cv-976
(GLS/ESH)

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
_________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Olinsky Law Group
300 S. State Street
5th Floor, Suite 520
Syracuse, NY 13202
Legal Aid Society of
Northeast New York
55 Colvin Avenue
Albany, NY 12206
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261
Steven P. Conte
Regional Chief Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel, Region II

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.

MICHAEL J. TELFER, ESQ.

KRISTINA D. COHN
MARIA P. FRAGASSI
SANTANGELO
Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys

26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Joey Griffin challenges defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), seeking review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
filed September 18, 2013, Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended
that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and Griffin’s complaint be
dismissed.1 (R&R, Dkt. No. 18.) Pending are Griffin’s objections to the
R&R. (Dkt. No. 19.) For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R
in its entirety.
II. Background2
On January 29, 2009, Griffin filed applications for DIB and SSI
1

The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and
familiarity therewith is presumed. (Dkt. No. 18.)
2

The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and
Judge Hines. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 15; see also Admin. Tr., Dkt. No. 9.)
2

under the Social Security Act. (R&R at 2; Tr.3 at 53-54, 101-12.) After his
applications were denied, Griffin requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on July 27, 2010. (Tr. at
33-52, 55-62, 65-67.) On September 22, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision
denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner’s final
determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council’s
denial of review. (Id. at 5-9, 18-31.)
Griffin commenced the present action by filing his complaint on June
15, 2012 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination.
(Compl.) After receiving the parties’ briefs, Judge Hines issued an R&R
recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (See
generally R&R.)
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

3

Page references preceded by “Tr.” are to the Administrative
Transcript. (Dkt. No. 9.)
3

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.
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
Griffin purports to object to the R&R on two grounds. First, he
asserts that Judge Hines improperly found that the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence,
and, second, he argues that Judge Hines’ “[s]tep [five] recommendation
should be rejected.” (Dkt. No. 19 at 1-3.) The substance of these
arguments, however, was previously raised in Griffin’s brief and considered
and rejected by Judge Hines. (Dkt. No. 12 at 10-13, 20-21; R&R at 6-14,
24-27.) Griffin’s “objections,” therefore, are general and do not warrant de
4

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
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines’ September 18, 2013
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and
Griffin’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.
January 27, 2014
Albany, New York

5