From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGregor v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jun 5, 2008
No. 7:06-CV-147 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2008)

Opinion

No. 7:06-CV-147 (LEK/DRH).

June 5, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 31, 2008 by the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 11). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Plaintiff Ernest McGregor, which were filed on April 14, 2008. Objections (Dkt. No. 13).

It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that the decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McGregor v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jun 5, 2008
No. 7:06-CV-147 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2008)
Case details for

McGregor v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST McGREGOR, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jun 5, 2008

Citations

No. 7:06-CV-147 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2008)

Citing Cases

McGregor v. Commissioner of Social Security

We have reviewed each of plaintiffs claims and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons…