Brogan v. Colvin

Filing 16

DECISION AND ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendations, denying 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and granting 12 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

KATHLEEN G. BROGAN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

No. 1:16-CV-00720 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Represented by counsel, Kathleen G. Brogan(“plaintiff”) brings
this action pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (“the
Act”), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying her application for
disability insurance benefits.

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
Hugh B. Scott for consideration of the factual and legal issues
presented, and to prepare and file a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) containing a recommended disposition of the issues raised.
By R&R dated August 16, 2017, Judge Scott recommended that
plaintiff’s motion be denied and the Commissioner’s motion be
granted, for the reasons described therein.

Docket No. 14.

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
serve

and

file

specific,

written

objections

to

the

proposed

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.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the R&R (Docket No. 14) is approved and adopted
in its entirety.

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Docket No. 12) is granted, and plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 11) is denied.

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
Dated:

October 11, 2017
Rochester, New York.