Ziemoore v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 18 Report and Recommendations, granting 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security. After reviewing the record, the Court finds no clear error in Ju dge Peck's well-reasoned and careful R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and, for the reasons set forth therein, grants the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See R&R at 21. The Court cert ifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) . The Clerk of Court is directed mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail, to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 16, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/30/2017) (mro) Modified on 12/1/2017 (mro).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
BEVERLY ZIEMOORE,
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 12/1/2017

1:17-cv-4621-GHW-AP
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
On June 16, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Beverly Ziemoore filed a complaint seeking judicial review
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. Dkt. No. 2. By order dated August 1, 2017, the
Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Peck for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
Dkt. No. 12. On September 25, 2017, Defendant filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff did not submit an opposition. Judge Peck issued his R&R on November 7,
2017, recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted. R&R at 1, Dkt. No. 18. The
R&R advised that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the service” of the R&R “to file
written objections.” R&R at 24. No party has lodged objections to the R&R, and the time to do so
has expired.
In reviewing an R&R, 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). A district
court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If
no timely objections are made, however, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record.” King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810, 2009 WL 2001439, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (citation omitted); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169
(S.D.N.Y. 2003).
After reviewing the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Peck’s well-reasoned and
careful R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and, for the reasons set forth
therein, grants the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See R&R at 21.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not
be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail, to
terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 16, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2017
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2