Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 22 Report and Recommendations, 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. In the Report, Judge Ellis concluded that (1) the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ ") properly conducted the five-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 to evaluate whether Plaintiff was disabled, and (2) the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform other work, and was thus not disabled, was supported by substantial evidence, including medical records, hearing testimony, and expert evidence. Report 20-24. After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant's motion papers, and the underly ing administrative record, the Court finds no error in such conclusion. The Report is therefore adopted in its entirety and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close item 19 on the docket and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth within this Order.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 9/10/2015) (ajs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DA TE FILED: 9/l 0/2015
JOSE L. TORRES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner ofSocial Security,
No. 14-CV-3198 (RA)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
Defendant.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff Jose L. Torres, proceeding in for ma pauperis, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking review of Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security's final decision denying him disability insurance and/or Supplemental Security
Income (''SSI") benefits. On January 30, 2015, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Rule 12( c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the
motion. On August 12, 2015, the Court received a report and recommendation CReporf') from
the Hon. Ronald L. Ellis, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that Defendant's motion
be granted and that the Complaint be dismissed. The Court received no objections to the Report.
For the reasons that follow, the well-reasoned Report is adopted in its entirety.
"A district court may set aside the Commissioner's determination that a claimant is not
disabled only if the factual findings are not supported by 'substantial evidence' or if the decision
is based on legal error." Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted);
see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.''
Burgess. 537 F.3d at 127 (citation omitted). When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, a district court "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)(l)(C).
As to those
portions of the Report to which no objections are made, '·a district court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Carlson v. Dep 't of.Justice, No. 10-CV-5149
(PAE)(KNF), 2012 WL 928124, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) (citation omitted); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b).
In the Report, Judge Ellis concluded that ( 1) the Administrative Law Judge ("ALT")
properly conducted the five-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 to
evaluate whether Plaintiff was disabled, and (2) the AL.T's decision that Plaintiff retained the
residual functional capacity to perform other work, and was thus not disabled, was supported by
substantial evidence, including medical records, hearing testimony, and expert evidence. Report
20-24. After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant's motion papers, and the underlying
administrative record, the Court finds no error in such conclusion. The Report is therefore adopted
in its entirety and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close item 19 on the docket and to close
the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
!\
September l 0, 2015
New York, New York
l
J
I
(1
1{
i.1
./
:
J
/,,,..
"'
L
Ronnie A ..,
-"~~~1s-.7+~=.=·-=---,...~---------
United States District Judge
2
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?