Schultz v. O'Malley

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ FREDERICK C. S., JR., Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-0723 (GTS/TWD) -vs- COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: HILLER COMERFORD INJURY & DISABILITY LAW JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff 6000 North Bailey Avenue - Suite 1A Amherst, New York 14226 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION JASON P. PECK, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant Office of the General Counsel 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, filed on August 30, 2024, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits be affirmed, and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 17.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.' As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, the Commissioner’s decision denying disability insurance benefits is affirmed, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability insurance benefits is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: September 24, 2024 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge

! When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).