Stephen F. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

STEPHEN F.,

Plaintiff,

-against- 8:25-CV-00874 (LEK/DJS)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION Stephen F.1 (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits for a lack of disability. Dkt. No. 1. On December 31, 2025, Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, requesting that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s final decision and remand for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 7 (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). On January 26, 2026, the Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in response, requesting that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. Dkt. No. 9 (“Commissioner’s Motion”). Plaintiff elected not to file a reply brief. Dkt. No. 10.

1 In accordance with guidance from the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which was adopted by the Northern District of New York in 2018 to better protect personal and medical information of non- governmental parties, this Order will identify Plaintiff’s last name by initial only. On August 4, 2026, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(e) recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision, deny Plaintiff’s Motion, and grant the Commissioner’s Motion. Dkt. No. 12 (“Report and Recommendation”).

No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background detailed in the Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. at 2–3. III. LEGAL STANDARD “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also L.R. 72.1. However, if no objections are made, a district court need only review a report and

recommendation for clear error. DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “Clear error is present when upon review of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 368 F. Supp. 3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (cleaned up). Upon review, a court “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)(C). IV. DISCUSSION No party objected to the Report and Recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Having found none, the Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 12, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 7, is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 9, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2026 Albany, New York AW. CE E. KAHN United States District Judge