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-

Download PDF
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

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?