Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

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)

‘1)CSDNY
)fl IE’%T
TR0CLy FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICF OF: \E\V YORK

DATE FILED:/i/f 1-

—

JAC OB PEREt.
MEMORANI)UM OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

13CV9733(Vm
CAROLYN W. COLVIN. Acting
Commissioner. Social Securit\ Administration.
Defendant.
x
Bri ccettjj:
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.

05(g).
§4

seeking judicial

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
prej udice.
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

Copies Mailed’Faxed
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.
CONCLUSION

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.

§

05(g),
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
SO ORDERED:

1
v

Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge