Pries v. Colvin

Filing 17

ORDER denying 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 13 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 15 Report and Recommendations. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 8/28/17. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
BRITTANY L. PRIES,
DECISION AND ORDER
No. 1:15-cv-00078

Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
________________________________

This matter comes before the Court following a Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 15) filed on August 7, 2017, by the
Honorable

Leslie

G.

Foschio,

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 Foschio recommended that 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

August

21,

2017,

to

file

objections to the R&R. To date, no objections have been filed, and
neither 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),

1

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); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 149 (1985). 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 in which the Court finds no
error. Accordingly, the Court accepts all of the findings and
recommendations therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R (Docket No. 15) is adopted in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Docket No. 13) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Docket No. 7) is denied.
2

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
DATED:

August 28, 2017
Rochester, New York

3