Perez v. Colvin

Filing 24

OPINION: For the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court denies Perez's motion and grants the Commissioner's cross-motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 13 and 17, and to close this case. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 3/3/2016) (kl)

..

sOCsn~~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

It

. DOCUMEl'i!
1

l

1

ELECTRONICALLY FILED j{

t! DOC"'#·

.
1~ oA·~·r... t.::p E·u-.• .-~-- 3-l~
\! .ru&. P:AL
..................
........---·....- .........-....-. .........-1.•..,...

H

·

~~

EILEEN PEREZ,
Plaintiff,
14-cv-9083
OPINION

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Eileen Perez brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"),
which denied her application for disability insurance benefits.

Both

sides have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Before the Court is the February 10, 2016
Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Ronald L. Ellis, United States
Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court deny Perez's motion and
grant the Commissioner's cross-motion (the "Report"). For the following
reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full.

1

,t
n
!I
1

~-u

--~---------

v.

-· .......

.

Background 1
Perez applied for Social Security Disability benefits, alleging
disability as of June 30, 2011, because of rheumatoid arthritis, left and
right knee arthritis, and left shoulder arthritis. After the Social Security
Administration denied her application, she requested and was granted a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("AW").

On March 19,

2013, Perez appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before AW
Selwyn Walters.
AW Walters denied Perez's claim for disability on July 23, 2013.
The Appeals Council denied Perez's request for review, making the AW's
decision the final administrative agency decision on Perez's application
for disability benefits.
On November 14, 2014, Perez commenced this action. On June 4,
2015, Perez filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to
vacate the AW's decision. On August 31, 2015, the Commissioner filed a
cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On

February

10,

2016,

Judge

Ellis

issued

the

Report,

recommending that the Court deny Perez's motion and grant the
Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The

deadline for the parties to file objections to the Report was February 29,
2016. See Report at 20. To this date, no objections have been filed.
1

The court's summary of the facts is drawn from the detailed account of
the facts provided in the Report, to which neither party objects. The
court adopts in full the Report's recitation of the facts.
2

Discussion
"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).
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court "may
accept,

reject,

or modify,

recommendations
§ 636(b)(1)(C).

made

in whole or in part,
by

the

magistrate

the findings

judge."

28

or

U.S.C.

"To accept the report and recommendation of a

magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record."

Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253

(S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189
(S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Because neither Perez nor the Commissioner has submitted
objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate.
Careful review of Judge Ellis's Report reveals no facial error in its

conclusions. The Report is therefore adopted in its entirety.

3

Conclusion
For the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court denies Perez's
motion and grants the Commissioner's cross-motion. The Clerk of Court
is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 13 and
17, and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
March 3, 2016

Thomas P. Griesa
U.S. District Judge

4