Padula v. Astrue

Filing 19

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Baxter's 15 Report and Recommendations; Affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 7/16/2012. (amt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
GERARD PADULA,
Plaintiff,
v.

8:11-CV-00607

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
___________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY,
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION & ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), was referred

by this Court to the Hon. Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ReportRecommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.3(d) of the Local Rules of the
Northern District of New York (“Local Rule(s)”).
The Report-Recommendation dated April 12, 2012, recommended that the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security be affirmed and the Complaint dismissed (Dkt. No.
15). Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation are governed by Local

Rule 72.1(c), which requires a party to “specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection, and the basis for the
1

objection.” N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve
and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations”).
When objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court
reviews the record de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court
may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge. See id. To the extent that the objections contain “only
conclusory or general arguments, or simply reiterate[ ] the original arguments,” the Court
will review strictly for clear error. DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citations omitted); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y.
2008) (citing McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). A
decision is “clearly erroneous” when the Court, upon reviewing the entire record, is “left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff offers various objections to the Report-Recommendation, but none of them

satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 72.1(c). Contrary to Rule 72.1(c), Plaintiff’s
objections offer “mere[ ] perfunctory responses,” and are devoid of any specific reasons or
legal authority on which his arguments rely. Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d
758, 766, (2d Cir. 2002); Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Moreover, Plaintiff’s reference to “previously filed papers or arguments,” see Dkt. No. 16,
fails to dissuade the inference that his objections endeavor only to engage the Court in a
“rehashing of the same arguments” made to the Magistrate Judge. Mario, 313 F.3d at

2

766; McAllan, 517 F. Supp. 2d at 679. Because Plaintiff’s objections are conclusory and
reference arguments previously made to the Magistrate Judge, the Court reviews the
Report-Recommendation for clear error.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation, and

having considered Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has found no clear error and adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly,
it is hereby ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2012

3