Opinion
3:09-CV-928
09-12-2011
ROSALIE CROWE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
LACHMAN & GORTON Attorneys for Plaintiff SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL, REGION II Attorneys for Defendant OF COUNSEL PETER A. GORTON, ESQ. KAREN T. CALLAHAN, ESQ.
(FJS/DRH)
APPEARANCES
LACHMAN & GORTON
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL
COUNSEL, REGION II
Attorneys for Defendant
OF COUNSEL
PETER A. GORTON, ESQ.
KAREN T. CALLAHAN, ESQ.
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial review of Defendant's final decision denying benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant submitted his answer on January 4, 2010. See Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff filed a brief in support of her complaint on February 9, 2010, see Dkt. No. 14; and Defendant filed his brief in opposition on April 28, 2010, see Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiff filed a reply brief in further support of her complaint on May 4, 2010. See Dkt. No. 20. On August 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge Homer issued a Report-Recommendation and Order, in which he recommended that this Court affirm Defendant's decision denying benefits. See Dkt. No. 21 at 36. Neither party filed any objections to this Report-Recommendation and Order.
When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). After conducting that review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Homer's August 2, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Homer's August 2, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's final decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2011
Syracuse, New York
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge