Swartz v. Colvin

Filing 31

ORDER AND OPINION re: 15 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and the Administrative Record. filed by Deborah Swartz, 26 CROSS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . filed by Carolyn W. Colvin. The factual and legal bases underlyi ng the Report are not clearly erroneous or contrary tolaw. Accordingly, the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety as the decision of the Court. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, Defendant's cross-motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/13/2015) (djc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
DEBORAH SWARTZ,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------ X

1/13/15

13 Civ. 5963 (LGS)
ORDER AND OPINION

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James C.
Francis (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be
denied, Defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and the Complaint
be dismissed in its entirety. (Docket No. 30 at 29). For the reasons stated below, the Report is
adopted in its entirety.
On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action, seeking judicial review of
a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Social
Security Disability Benefits. (Docket No. 1). On September 4, 2013, the matter was referred to
Judge Francis. (Docket 2). On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff moved for judgment on the
administrative record and pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Docket No. 15). On August 15, 2014, Defendant cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings.
(Docket No. 26). On October 29, 2014, Judge Francis issued the Report. (Docket No. 30). No
objections to the Report were filed.
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). The district court “may adopt those portions of the report to

which no specific, written objection is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the
findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Adams v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
The factual and legal bases underlying the Report are not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety as the decision of the Court. Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED, Defendant’s cross-motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is dismissed.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2015
New York, New York