Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION adopting 14 Report and Recommendations, granting 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Upon careful review of the R & R, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with Magistrate Judge Fox's findings. Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in full, and Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the open motion at docket entry 10, to terminate the case, and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/19/2016) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED:
9/19/16

ELIZABETH SOTO,
Plaintiff,
-againstCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

15-CV-8207 (VEC) (KNF)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION

Defendant.
VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Elizabeth Soto commenced this action seeking review of the denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and for supplemental security income
(“SSI”). On November 19, 2015, this Court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Kevin
Nathanial Fox. Dkt. 6. On March 8, 2016, the Commissioner of Social Security moved for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the
Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 et seq., was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence.
Dkt. 11. Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s motion. On August 17, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Fox issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R) recommending that Defendant’s motion be
granted. Dkt. 14. The R & R notified Plaintiff that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), her deadline to file an objection to the R & R was
fourteen days from the date of service of the R&R. Magistrate Judge Fox informed the Court
that the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff on September 1, 2016; no objections were filed by the
September 15, 2016 deadline.

DISCUSSION
In reviewing a 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) (1)(C). When no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report, a district
court may adopt the report so long as “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Phillips
v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted). Failure to file
timely objections to the report of the magistrate judge constitutes a waiver of those objections in
the district court and on later appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.
1989) (per curiam).
CONCLUSION
Upon careful review of the R & R, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with
Magistrate Judge Fox’s findings. Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in full, and Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
directed to close the open motion at docket entry 10, to terminate the case, and to mail a copy of
this order to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 19, 2016
New York, New York
VALERIE CAPRONI
CAPRONI
R
United States District Judge

2