Schildwachter v. Berryhill

Filing 30

ORDER: Adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 27 Report and Recommendation. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 21) is DENIED. Defendant's moti on for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED. Because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see R&R at 1718, Plaintiff's failure to file adequate objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onon daga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all open motions and to CLOSE the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 3/11/2019) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
CHRISTOPHER SCHILDWACHTER,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------------------------------------ X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/11/2019
17-CV-7277 (VEC)
ORDER

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Schildwachter brought this action seeking review of the denial of his
application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–434.
See Compl., Dkt. 1. The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkts. 21,
24. On February 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s motion be
denied. See R&R, Dkt. 27. On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a one-paragraph letter
objecting to the R&R for the reasons stated in his previously-filed brief. See Dkt. 28.
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). The parties may submit “specific written objections” to the R&R,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), but in order to preserve their objections, they must refer “to specific
findings or recommendations” in the R&R and must support their positions with legal authority,
Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002). Where, as here, a party

“[m]erely refer[s] the court to previously filed papers or arguments,” the party’s objection is not
preserved. Id. In that circumstance, the district court “need only find that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the report and recommendation.” Phillips v. Reed
Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Adams v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (a
district court “may adopt those portions of the [magistrate’s] report to which no ‘specific, written
objection’ is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions
set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b))). Failure to file adequate objections to the magistrate’s report constitutes a waiver of
those objections in the district court and on appeal. 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).
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Netburn’s R&R. As the R&R explains, the
findings of the ALJ that Plaintiff challenges were all supported by substantial evidence, and any
errors or omissions that the ALJ made were harmless. See Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 409
(2d Cir. 2010) (when an ALJ commits error, “[r]emand is unnecessary . . . [w]here application of
the correct legal standard could lead to only one conclusion.” (collecting cases)). Accordingly,
the Court adopts the R&R in full.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, this Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Plaintiff’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 21) is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED. Because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning,

2

see R&R at 17–18, Plaintiff’s failure to file adequate objections to the R&R precludes appellate
review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all open motions and to CLOSE
the case.
SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: March 11, 2019
New York, NY

3