DiMaggio v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 18 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation denying 15 Motion to Remand to SSA, granting 17 Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 1/28/2015. (pac)

uS OISTRlCT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

2015

JAN 28 AH g: 11

CL~
BY-DEPU -l y CL,..Rl!
c.. II.

STEVEN DIMAGGIO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAROLYN W. COL YIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5: 13-cv-296

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 15, 17 & 18)
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 remand
pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff alleges that new
evidence should be considered by the Commissioner on remand. Defendant opposes the
motion and has filed a motion for order affirming the decision of the Commissioner.
(Doc. 17.) 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)(l); 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)(l); 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 six pageR & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual record
and the motions before the court and determined that among other things, the new
evidence presented by the Plaintiff does not relate to the alleged disability period and
does not present a reasonable possibility of influencing the Commissioner to decide the
Plaintiffs claim differently. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
court deny Plaintiffs motion for remand 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 remand
(Doc. 15), and GRANTS the Defendant's motion for order affirming the decision ofthe
Commissioner (Doc. 17).
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this ;.ffiJay of January, 2015.

2