Tilves v. Colvin

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Parker's thorough and well-reasoned R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadi ngs is DENIED and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The parties' failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 Civ. 1104 (DLC), 200 8 WL 3852051, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008) (citing United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/12/18) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DINA TILVES,
Plaintiff,
-against-

OPINION AND ORDER
17 Civ. 0824 (ER)

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

Ramos, D.J.:
Dina Tilves (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application
for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). Pending before the Court is the parties Joint
Stipulation, filed in lieu of separate cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. 14. On December 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied and the Commissioner’s motion be granted.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and directs the entry of
judgment as recommended.
I.

Background
Plaintiff filed for DIB on July 8, 2013, alleging disability on the basis of various ailments

including spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, chronic pain, sleep disorder, and dizziness
from medication, with an onset date for her disability of March 23, 2012. Doc. 10 at 173-74,
197. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied her application on August 29, 2013 on
the grounds that her medical conditions were not severe enough to render her unable to work. Id.

at 106, 109. After timely requesting a hearing, Plaintiff appeared before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) on February 24, 2015. Id. at 36-96, 126. On June 25, 2015, the ALJ confirmed
the denial of benefits, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act for the period of March 23, 2012 through June 25, 2015. Id. at 22-35. Plaintiff
appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Social Security Appeals Counsel, which denied Plaintiff’s
request for review on December 28, 2016. Id. at 1. Plaintiff filed the instant action on February
3, 2017. Doc. 1. On May 10, 2017, Judge Parker directed the parties to submit a Joint
Stipulation in lieu of motions for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 9. On September 7, 2017, the
parties submitted their Joint Stipulation. Doc. 14.
On December 20, 2017, Judge Parker issued her R&R, recommending that judgment be
entered in favor of the Commissioner. R&R at 12. Specifically, Judge Parker found that the
ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. Id.
Judge Parker noted that objections, if any, would be due fourteen days from service of the
R&R and that failure to timely object would preclude later appellate review of any order of
judgment entered. Id. at 12-13. Neither the Plaintiff, nor the Commissioner filed objections.
They have therefore waived their right to object to the R & R. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Real–
Time Analysis & News, Ltd., No. 14 Civ. 131 (JMF) (GWG), 2014 WL 5002092, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 7, 2014) (citing Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Caidor v. Onondaga
County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
II.

Standard of Review
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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). Parties may raise “specific,” “written” objections to the
report and recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy.” Id.; see also
2