Summary
discussing other court's findings that "Hallex policies are not regulations and therefore not deserving of controlling weight," while conceding that "an administrative agency is required to follow its own internal policies when they accord with or are more demanding than the statute or its regulations."
Summary of this case from Shari L. v. SaulOpinion
7:14-CV-00285 (GTS/WBC)
10-09-2015
MICHAEL J. DORITY, Plaintiff, v. COMM'R OF SOC. SEC., Defendant.
APPEARANCES: CONBOY, McKAY LAW FIRM Counsel for Plaintiff 307 State Street Carthage, NY 13619 U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. OFFICE OF REG'L GEN. COUNSEL - REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 OF COUNSEL: LAWRENCE D. HASSELER, ESQ. KAREN T. CALLAHAN, ESQ.
APPEARANCES: CONBOY, McKAY LAW FIRM
Counsel for Plaintiff
307 State Street
Carthage, NY 13619
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
OFFICE OF REG'L GEN. COUNSEL - REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
OF COUNSEL: LAWRENCE D. HASSELER, ESQ. KAREN T. CALLAHAN, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Michael J. Dority ("Plaintiff") against the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or "the Commissioner") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed September 15, 2015, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. (Dkt. No. 15.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation have not been filed.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation "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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, but they must be "specific written objections," and must be submitted "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "Where, however, an objecting 'party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.'" Caldwell v. Crosset, 09- CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]).
After carefully reviewing the filings in this action, the Court can find no clear error in the Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 15.) ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner's determination is AFFIRMED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: October 9, 2015
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief, U.S. District Judge