La Paz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendations, granting 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Before the Court is Judge Freeman's Report & Recommendation ("R & R") recom mending that the Court grant the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the pro se Plaintiff's appeal of an administrative denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance under the Social Security Act. See Dkt. No. 20; as set forth herein. Objections to Judge Freeman's R & R were due by February 15, 2017. See Dkt. No. 20 at 76-77. As of March 8, 2017, no objections have been filed. The Court thus reviews the R & R for clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the R & R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, on the grounds described by Judge Freeman. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/20/2017) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDCSDNY
DCCU1\'IENT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DA:TE rILfJi:_&_.~J "1.4f

-

---...=:.------

Andrew La Paz,

Plaintiff,
15-cv-63 53 (AJN)(DCF)

-vORDER
Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Judge Freeman's Report & Recommendation ("R & R")
recommending that the Court grant the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the
prose Plaintiffs appeal of an administrative denial of supplemental security income and
disability insurance under the Social Security Act. See Dkt. No. 20.
When considering the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the Court
may "accept, reject, or modify [them], in whole or in part." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). The Court
must

mak~_a

de nova determination of any portions of a magistrate's report or findings to which

a party raises an objection, and reviews only for "clear error on the face of the record" when
there are no objections to the R & R. Brennan v. Colvin, No. 13-CV-6338 (AJN) (RLE), 2015
1

WL 1402204, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015),· see also Hicks v. Ercole, No. 09-cv-2531 (AJN)
(MHD), 2015 WL 1266800, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015); Gomez v. Brown, 655 F.Supp.2d
332, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Clear error is found only when, upon review of the entire record, the
Court is left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Laster v.
Mancini, No. 07-CV-8265 (DAB) (MHD), 2013 WL 5405468, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013)

(quoting United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)).
Objections to Judge Freeman's R & R were due by February 15, 2017. See Dkt. No. 20
at 76-77. As of March 8, 2017, no objections have been filed. 1 The Court thus reviews the R &
R for clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the R & R in its entirety and
GRANTS Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, on the grounds described by Judge
Freeman.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March

'to ,2017

New York, New York

1

On February 27, 2017, the Court received a letter from the prose Plaintiff which was dated February 20,
2017. See Dkt. No. 21. In that letter, the Plaintiff makes no objections to the R&R. See id. Even if any language in
the letter could be construed as an objection, there are no specific objections such that the standard ofreview in this
case would not be clear error. See Tinsley v. Woods, No. 08 CV 1332 VB, 2011WL4472468 (VB), at *I (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 28, 2011) ("[E]ven a prose party's objections to a Rep01i and Recommendation must be specific and clearly
aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no paiiy be allowed a second bite at the apple by
simply relitigating a prior argument." (quoting Pinkney v. Progressive Home Health Servs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
55034, at *l, 2008 WL 2811816 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008)).

2

ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge

3