Opinion
6:20-CV-1302 (LEK/DEP)
09-13-2022
MICHAEL KEITH APGAR, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on April 25, 2022, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 18.
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). If no objections are made, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013). 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. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 368 F.Supp.3d 741, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to the ReportRecommendation. After carefully examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 18, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 18; 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.