Degnan v. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings 20 ; GRANTING defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 23 ; dismissing the complaint and instructing the Clerk of the Court to close the file. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 11/16/2017. (CMD)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
SHERRY L. DEGNAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

16-CV-197-LJV(MJR)
ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________

On March 7, 2016, the plaintiff, Sherry L. Degnan, commenced this action.
Docket Item 1. On January 6, 2017, the Court referred this case to United States
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B). Docket Item 19. On January 10, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment
on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, to remand the matter for further development of
the record. Docket Item 20. On April 10, 2017, the defendant responded to the
plaintiff’s motion and moved for judgment on the pleadings. Docket Item 23. On
October 16, 2017, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation, finding that
the defendant’s motion should be granted and that the plaintiff’s motion should be
denied. Docket Item 25. The parties did not object to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time to do so now has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court

must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. Section 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no
objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has
reviewed Judge Roemer’s Report and Recommendation. Based on that review and the
absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s
recommendation to deny the plaintiff’s motion and grant the defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
For the reasons stated above and in the Report and Recommendation, the
plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for
further proceedings (Docket Item 20), is DENIED; the defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Docket Item 23) is GRANTED; the complaint (Docket Item 1) is
dismissed; and the Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the file.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2017
Buffalo, New York
s/Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2