Opinion
5:12-cv-992 (GLS/ATB)
2013-09-30
MEGAN WINIFRED ROACH, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Olinsky Law Group Syracuse, NY 13202 FOR THE DEFENDANT: HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney STEVEN P. CONTE Regional Chief Counsel Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Region II OF COUNSEL: KAREN S. SOUTHWICK, ESQ. PETER W. JEWETT Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Olinsky Law Group
Syracuse, NY 13202
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
STEVEN P. CONTE
Regional Chief Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel, Region II
OF COUNSEL:
KAREN S. SOUTHWICK, ESQ. PETER W. JEWETT
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Megan Winifred Roach challenges defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed May 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed and Roach's complaint be dismissed. (R&R, Dkt. No. 14.) Pending are Roach's objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 15.) For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed. (Dkt. No. 14.)
II. Background
The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and Judge Baxter. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 14; see also Admin. Tr., Dkt. No. 9.)
--------
On November 3, 2009, Roach filed applications for DIB and SSI under the Social Security Act. (R&R at 1.) After her applications were denied, Roach requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on December 8, 2010. (Id.) On February 3, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (Id. at 2.)
Roach commenced the present action by filing her complaint on June 19, 2012 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl.) After receiving the parties' briefs, Judge Baxter issued an R&R recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (See generally R&R.)
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. 40.1, 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. 904CV484GLS, 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
Roach purports to object to the R&R on three grounds. First, she asserts that Judge Baxter improperly found that there was no gap in the medical evidence such that a source statement from treating physician Gene Bailey was necessary for the ALJ to make a disability determination. (Dkt. No. 15 at 1-2.) Second, she objects to Judge Baxter's recommendation that the residual functional capacity determination was properly supported in the record. (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, she objects to Judge Baxter's conclusion that the ALJ did not err in relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to determine that there is other work which Roach could perform. (Id. at 3-4.) The substance of all three arguments, however, was previously raised in Roach's brief and considered and rejected by Judge Baxter. (Dkt. No. 12 at 10-12, 16-19, 23-24; R&R at 9-11, 16-32.) Roach's "objections," therefore, are general and do not warrant de novo review. See Almonte, 2006 WL 149049 at *4. The court, having carefully reviewed the record, finds no clear error in the R&R and accepts and adopts it in its entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's May 20, 2013 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Roach's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Albany, New York
September 30, 2013
________
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
U.S. District Court