Opinion
5:21-cv-24 (GLS/DJS)
08-10-2022
NATALIE A. S., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: OLINSKY LAW GROUP HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT: HON. CARLA B. FREEDMAN. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY NATASHA OELTJEN SPECIAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY ANATOLY SCHNAIDER REGIONAL CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL, REGION III
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP
HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. CARLA B. FREEDMAN.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
NATASHA OELTJEN
SPECIAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
ANATOLY SCHNAIDER
REGIONAL CHIEF COUNSEL
OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL, REGION III
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Gary L. Sharpe Senior District Judge
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Natalie A. S., challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) seeking review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a ReportRecommendation and Order (R&R) issued May 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart recommended that Natalie's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. (Dkt. No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the R&R, affirms the Commissioner's decision, and dismisses the complaint.
II. Background
On March 23, 2018, Natalie applied for DIB. (Tr. at 71, 150-152.) After her application was initially denied, (id. at 78-87), she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), (id. at 88), which was held on August 30, 2019, (id. at 30-57). On February 10, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, finding that Natalie was not disabled under the Social Security Act. (Id. 10-29.) On November 6, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Natalie's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final determination. (Id. at 1-6.) Natalie commenced the present action on January 8, 2021, wherein she sought review of the Commissioner's determination. (Dkt. No. 1.) After receiving the parties' briefs, Judge Stewart issued an R&R recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 18.)
Page references preceded by “Tr.” are to the Administrative Transcript. (Dkt. No. 9.)
III. Standard of Review
By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer social security appeals to magistrate judges for proposed findings and recommendations as to disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 3.1, 72.3(d); General Order No. 18. Before entering final judgment, this court reviews report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party properly objects to a specific element of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *3, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In cases where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments already considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *4-5.
IV. Discussion
Natalie's objections are two fold: she argues that (1) “the court should reject the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the ALJ adequately evaluated Dr. Dhiman's opinion”; and (2) “the court should reject the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the ALJ adequately evaluated plaintiff's subjective complaints.” (Dkt. No. 19 at 1-4.) These objections are reiterations of arguments Natalie raised in her brief and were already considered by Magistrate Judge Stewart. (Dkt. No. 14 at 10-12, Dkt. No. 19 at 1-4.) While Natalie takes issue with how these arguments were resolved, she fails to point out any particular deficiency with the R&R itself. Thus, these objections are general and warrant review for clear error only. See Almonte, 2006 WL 149049, at *4-5. Having carefully reviewed the R&R for clear error and fining none, it is adopted in its entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 18) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Natalie'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. 17) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Natalie's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.