Opinion
1:16-CV-0055 (BKS/ATB)
03-30-2017
RODNEY WILLIAM BELL, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Appearances: Peter M. Margolius Office of Peter M. Margolius 7 Howard Street Catskill, NY 12414 For Plaintiff Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney Joshua L. Kershner, Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Office of Regional General Counsel Region II 26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 For Defendant
Appearances:
Peter M. Margolius
Office of Peter M. Margolius
7 Howard Street
Catskill, NY 12414
For Plaintiff Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney
Joshua L. Kershner, Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
Office of Regional General Counsel
Region II
26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
For Defendant Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge :
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Rodney William Bell filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income. Dkt. No. 1. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 3; Local Rule 73.2(d). On March 2, 2017, after reviewing the parties' briefs, Dkt. Nos. 12, 17, and the Administrative Transcript, Dkt. No. 11, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed and that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 18, p. 18. Magistrate Judge Baxter advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had "14 days within which to file written objections" to the Report and that "failure to object to th[e] report within 14 days will preclude appellate review." Id. (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e)).
DISCUSSION
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Id.
Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and found none. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2017
/s/_________
Brenda K. Sannes
U.S. District Judge