Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for 25 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is a ffirmed without remanding the case for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. The Clerk is instructed to enter Judgment accordingly and close this case. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7; 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). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 10/11/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICF OF: \E\V YORK
DATE FILED:/i/f 1-
JAC OB PEREt.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN. Acting
Commissioner. Social Securit\ Administration.
Plaintiff Jacob PereL, proceeding p se and
forma pauperis. brings this action pursuant
to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act’). 42 U.S.C.
revie of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner”) denying
plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income benefits (“5SF’).
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R). dated July 21. 2016 (Doc. #25). on defendant’s unopposed motion forjudgment on
the pleadings to affirm the Co!nmissioners decision pursuant to Rule 12(c). (Doc. # 19). Judge
McCarthy recommended that the motion be granted and that the case be dismissed with
Familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case is presumed.
For the fullow ing reasons. the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. grants
delendants motion, and affirms the decision of the Commissioner
fur further adniinistratie proceedings, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
ithout remanding the case
405(g). sentence four.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation rnay accept.
reject. or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
Chambers of Vincent L. Briccettj
judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. hut they must be “specific[.] written.” and submitted within fourteen days after
being sered with a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l). or within seventeen days if the parties are served
by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. p. 6(d).
Insofar as a report and recommendation deals with a dispositive motion, a district court
must conduct a de novo revie\\ of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which timely objections are made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l)( ). The district
court may adopt those portions o1 the recommended ruling to which no timely objections have
been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.
S Wilds v. United
Parcel Serv.. Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The clearly erroneous standard
also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, oi, simply reiterates his
original arguments. See Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Because
petitioner is proceeding p se, the Court “will ‘read [his] supporting papers liberally, and .
interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Id. (quoting Burgos v.
Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787. 790 (2d Cii’. 1994)).
Neither party objected to Judge McCarthys thorough and well-reasoned R&R.
The Court has reviewed the R&R. as well as the administrative record upon which it is
based, and finds no error, clear or otherwise.
Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed ithout remanding the case for further
administrative proceedings, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
4 sentence four.
The Clerk is instructed to enter Judgment accordingly and close this case.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC.
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 LLS. 438, 44445 (1962).
Dated: October 11, 2016
White Plains, NY
Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?