Colon v. Colvin
DECISION AND ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendations, granting 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and denying 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/11/2017. (CDH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEEVINE JESSE COLON,
No. 1:15-CV-00834 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Represented by counsel, Deevine Jesse Colon (“plaintiff”)
brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (“the Act”),
seeking review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his applications for
disabled adult child benefits and supplemental security income.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). The matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross
motions for judgment on the pleadings. The parties’ motions were
referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for consideration
of the factual and legal issues presented, and to prepare and file
disposition of the issues raised.
By R&R dated September 14, 2017, Judge McCarthy recommended
that the case be remanded for the calculation of benefits and
determination of an exact onset date. Docket No. 29. Both parties
were notified that they were given 14 days within which to file
objections; however, neither party has filed an objection.
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy
of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the party “may
findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “Where no
objection is made to a report and recommendation, or the parties
make frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, only ‘clear
error’ review is required by the district court.”
Teixeria v. St.
Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 218, 222 (W.D.N.Y. 2016).
“After conducting the appropriate review, the district judge may
‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’”
Id. (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections having been filed, the Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none.
Accordingly, the R&R (Docket No. 29) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.
The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Docket No. 22) is denied, and plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 17) is granted to the extent
determination of an exact onset date.
The Clerk of the Court is
directed to close this case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
October 11, 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?