Lora v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER for 15 Report and Recommendations 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Having conducted a review of the 29-page R & R, the Court finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous and, in fact, is thorough, well-reasoned, and entirely in conformity with the law. Accordingly, the R & R's recommendations are adopted in their entirety, and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted. For the reasons sta ted above, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 12), close this case, and mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff Shakira Lora, 785 Court landt Avenue, Apt. 13C, Bronx, New York 10451. Because the parties did not object to the R & R adopted herein, appellate review of this Order is precluded. Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/28/2017) (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE F-IL-ED-:~~.-+h-f-+z-1--

SHAKIRA J. LORA,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
- v. 16 Civ. 3916 (PGG) (RLE)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:
Prose Plaintiff Shakira Lora filed this action on May 24, 2016, pursuant to
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of a final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her Supplemental Security
Income ("SSI") benefits on the ground that she was not disabled. (Dkt. No. 2) On June 8, 2016,
this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis for a Report and Recommendation
("R & R"). (Dkt. No. 7) On November 14, 2016, the Commissioner moved for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). (Dkt. No. 12) Plaintiff did not file a response to the
Commissioner's motion.
On September 12, 2017, Judge Ellis issued an R & R recommending that this
Court grant the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismiss the
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 15) The R & R recites the requirement that the parties must file objections
within fourteen days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the "[f]ailure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver
of those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals." (Id. at 29) See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) ("[w]ithin fourteen days after being served

with a copy [of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)
("[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may
serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations"). No
objections to the R & R have been filed by either side.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part" findings or
recommendations issued by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). "'The districtjudge
evaluating a magistrate judge's recommendation may adopt those portions of the
recommendation, without further review, where no specific objection is made, as long as they are
not clearly erroneous.'" Gilmore v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 09 Civ. 6241 (RMB) (FM), 2011
WL 611826, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2011) (quoting Chimarev v. TD Waterhouse Investor
Servs., Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 208, 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). Because no objections have been filed,
this Court will review the R & R for clear error.
Having conducted a review of the 29-page R & R, the Court finds that the R & R
is not clearly erroneous and, in fact, is thorough, well-reasoned, and entirely in conformity with
the law.
Judge Ellis concluded that (I) the administrative law judge ("ALJ") properly
weighed the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians and properly assessed Plaintiffs own
credibility, and (2) substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that, while Plaintiff has
certain "non-exertional limitations," she is capable of performing jobs that "exist[] in significant
numbers in the national economy." (R & R (Dkt. No. 15) at 19-27) Judge Ellis further
concluded that the additional medical documents provided by Plaintiff in the Complaint did not

2

warrant a remand to the Commissioner for further consideration. (See id. at 27-29) This Court
agrees with Judge Ellis's assessment.
Accordingly, the R & R's recommendations are adopted in their entirety, and the
Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the
pleadings is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 12),
close this case, and mail a copy of this order to prose Plaintiff Shakira Lora, 785 Courtlandt
A venue, Apt. 13C, Bronx, New York 10451. Because the parties did not object to the R & R
adopted herein, appellate review of this Order is precluded. Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300
(2d Cir. 1992).
Dated: New York, New York
September2)?, 2017

SO ORDERED.

Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge

3