Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CAROL H.1

Plaintiff, 1:22-cv-112 (BKS/ML)

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,2

Defendant.

Appearances: Plaintiff Pro Se: Carol H. Pottersville, NY 12860 For Defendant: Carla B. Freedman, United States Attorney Hugh Dun Rappaport, Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Carol H. filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) finding that Plaintiff, who was previously found to be disabled, was no longer disabled as of April 9, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report and

1 In accordance with the local practice of this Court, these names have been abbreviated to protect their privacy. 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the current Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi, has been substituted in place of her predecessor, Commissioner Andrew Saul. Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); N.D.N-Y. L.R. 72.3(d). On February 3, 2023, after reviewing the Commissioner’s brief and the Administrative Record, (Dkt. Nos. 14, 21), Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed.* (Dkt. No. 24). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (/d. at 22). Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. As no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner decision is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dad: ebay 722023 Pen da CSawwes Chief U.S. District Judge

3 Despite several clear reminders and extensions by the Court, Plaintiff failed to file a brief in support of her case. (See Dkt. Nos. 16-17, 20).