Flechsenhaar v. Colvin
DECISION AND ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 14 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations in its entirety. (Clerk to close case.). Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 8/18/17. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RICHARD J. FLECHSENHAAR, III,
DECISION AND ORDER
-vsCAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
This matter comes before the Court following a Report and
Recommendation (Dkt #16) filed on June 16, 2017, by the Honorable
Jeremiah J. McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c) of the
Western District of New York. In his Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), Judge McCarthy recommended that the decision issued by
(“Defendant”) denying Disability Insurance Benefits to Richard J.
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and
that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied.
The parties were given until June 30, 2017, to file objections
to the R&R. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither
Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A.
Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the
defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit
by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
party has sought an extension of time in which to file objections.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
a district court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]” id.
Where no “specific written objection” is made to portions of the
magistrate judge’s report, the district court may adopt those
portions, “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.” Eisenberg v. New England
Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp.2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); other citation omitted). The district court is not required
to review any portion of a magistrate judge’s report that is not
the subject of an objection. Eisenberg, 564 F. Supp.2d at 227
(citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149).
As noted above, no objections were made to any portion of the
R&R, which the Court has reviewed and finds to be thorough and
well-reasoned. Finding no error in the R&R, the Court accepts all
of the findings and recommendations therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt #16) is adopted in its entirety; and
it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Dkt #14) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Dkt #9) is denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
August 18, 2017
Rochester, New York
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?