Opinion
No. 04 Civ. 6024 (LTS) (AJP).
September 5, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Darcel Morgan ("Plaintiff") brings this action seeking review of a determination by the Social Security Administration that her daughter, Zanique, is not eligible for disability benefits. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), asserting that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's") decision should be affirmed.
On April 21, 2005, Magistrate Judge Peck issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Commissioner's motion be granted. Plaintiff submitted objections to this report and, by Order dated September 19, 2005, the Court asked Magistrate Judge Peck to further consider the matter in light of these objections. On September 26, 2005, Magistrate Judge Peck issued a second Report recommending that the Commissioner's motion be granted. By Order dated October 5, 2005, the Court again recommitted the matter to Magistrate Judge Peck for reconsideration in light of Plaintiff's objections. On November 7, 2005, Magistrate Judge Peck issued a third Report recommending that the Commissioner's motion be granted. Plaintiff submitted her objections to this last Report on December 20, 2005.
When the Court reviews a Report and Recommendation, it may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole, or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (West 2005). If the plaintiff raises specific objections to the magistrate's findings, the Court must subject the issues raised by these objections to de novo review. United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997); Richards v. Calvet, No. 99 Civ. 12172 (RJH) (MHD), 2005 WL 743251, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2005). When the plaintiff makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates original arguments, however, the Court will only review the magistrate's Report for clear error. Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992);Orix Financial Services, Inc. v. Thunder Ridge Energy, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 4788 (RJH) (HBP), 2006 WL 587483, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2006); Calvet, 2005 WL 743251, at *2.
Plaintiff's objections to the November 7, 2005, Report consist of reiterations of her prior arguments, both of which were specifically addressed by Judge Peck in the Report, that the ALJ had failed to enforce a subpoena issued to The Child School and that the ALJ's denial of Social Security benefits was not based on substantial evidence because he failed properly consider Zanique's placement in a special environment and the impact that this setting allegedly has on her ability to sustain adequate functioning. Plaintiff also complains that Judge Peck failed explicitly to address her prior argument that the ALJ failed fully to develop the record because he did not request from The Child School an assessment of Zanique's function in comparison with the level of function expected from unimpaired children of her age.
The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Peck's treatment of the first two arguments. As to the third, the Report clearly indicates that Magistrate Judge Peck did not overlook the functional assessment argument in that Magistrate Judge Peck quoted a passage from Plaintiff's brief making that very argument in introducing his analysis of the question of development of the record. (Report at 7.) Furthermore, on de novo review of this point, the undersigned concludes that the argument is unmeritorious. The record before the ALJ included extensive information, from medical professionals as well as from The Child School, concerning Zanique's functional capabilities. The record was sufficiently developed to provide the ALJ with the information necessary to assess appropriately Zanique's limitations in each functional domain, and nothing in the regulations or the caselaw requires an ALJ to obtain a full-scope functional domain analysis from a child's school under the circumstances of this case.
CONCLUSION
Having thoroughly considered Magistrate Judge Peck's Reports and Recommendations and the parties' submissions and having reviewed Plaintiff's functional comparison claim de novo, the Court hereby adopts the findings and recommendations in the first and final Reports (docket entries 11 and 22) in their entirety. Accordingly, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings affirming the denial of benefits is granted and Plaintiff's request for remand is denied.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDERED