Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner, granting 11 Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 4/28/2014. (pac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
20\4 APR
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

LAURIE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

v.
CAROL YN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

28 Ml \ I: 24

Case No. 5:13-cv-180

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 8, 11 & 13)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's March
31, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Plaintiff has filed a motion to reverse
the decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 8.) Defendant opposes the motion and has filed
a motion for order affirming the decision ofthe Commissioner. (Doc. 11.) Neither party
has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir.
1999). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord

Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See

Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196,206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,
419 U.S. 879 (1974).
In his twenty-six page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and the motions before the court and determined that among other things, the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") did not err in his partially favorable determination
that Plaintiff became disabled on February 3, 2013, but was not disabled before that date.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the court deny Plaintiffs motion for order
reversing the decision of the Commissioner and grant Defendant's motion for order
affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Neither party has objected to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations which the court finds well-reasoned.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R as the court's Opinion and Order, and DENIES Plaintiffs motion to reverse
decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 8), and GRANTS the Defendant's motion for order
affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 11).
SO ORDERED.

A

Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this 2~ day of April, 2014.

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2