Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER: As there were no objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed Judge Peck's well reasoned Report for clear error. After careful review of the record and exhibits submitted with the complaint, the Court finds no error and thus adopts the Report in its entirety. It is therefore ordered that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 4/11/2016) (cf)
DATE FILED: 4/11/2016
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
No. 14-CV-7206 (RA)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff Larry Thomas, who is proceeding prose, filed a complaint
appealing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for
supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits.
Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On June 5, 2015, the
The motion was referred to
Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck for a report and recommendation. On July 30, 2015, Judge Peck
issued a report and recommendation (the ''Report"), recommending that the Commissioner's
motion be granted. Neither party filed objections to the Report.
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). Parties may object to a
magistrate judge's recommended findings "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "When the parties make no objections to the
Report, the Court may adopt the Report if 'there is no clear error on the face of the record."' Smith
v. Corizon Health Services, No. 14-CV-8839 (GBD), 2015 WL 6123563, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16,
2015) (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).
''Furthermore, if as here ... the magistrate judge's report states that failure to object will preclude
appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then the failure to object
generally operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review. As long as adequate notice is
provided, the rule also applies to prose parties." Hamilton v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 331 F. App'x
874, 875 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
As there were no objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed Judge Peck's wellreasoned Report for clear error. After careful review of the record and exhibits submitted with the
complaint, the Court finds no error and thus adopts the Report in its entirety. 1 It is therefore
ordered that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
April 11, 2016
New York, New York
Uni ed States District Judge
Plaintiff attached a July 21, 2014 letter from Dr. Paul De Guzman to his complaint, which was not part of
the administrative record. As Judge Peck noted, Dr. De Guzman began treating Thomas after the period for which
benefits were denied; therefore. his opinion is not relevant to Plaintifrs condition during the review period. Plaintiff
is, however, free to reapply for benefits based on conditions that have worsened since the ALJ issued his decision.
See Felix v. Astrue. No. I l-CV-3697 (KAM), 2012 WL 3043203, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. July 24. 2012).
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?