Opinion
5:22-CV-794
07-11-2023
TRICIA W., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
OLINSKY LAW GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Attorneys for Defendant KATHRYN S. POLLACK, ESQ. Special Ass't U.S. Attorney
OLINSKY LAW GROUP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Attorneys for Defendant
KATHRYN S. POLLACK, ESQ.
Special Ass't U.S. Attorney
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID N. HURD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 27, 2022, plaintiff Tricia W. (“plaintiff') filed this action seeking review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3.
In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference's Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this District, only the first name and last initial of plaintiff will be mentioned in this opinion.
Thereafter, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart granted plaintiffs IFP Application, Dkt. No. 8, the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 9, and then both parties briefed the matter in accordance with General Order 18, which provides that an appeal taken from the Commissioner's denial of benefits is treated as if the parties have filed cross-motions for a judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 10, 14, 15.
On June 8, 2023, Judge Stewart advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Commissioner's motion be granted, that plaintiffs motion be denied, that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed, and that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff has filed objections, Dkt. No. 17, which have been fully briefed, Dkt. No. 18.
Upon de novo review of the portions to which plaintiff has lodged specific objections, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In particular, the Court agrees with the Commissioner that plaintiffs objections are based on language from several factually distinguishable Social Security cases. A review of Judge Stewart's R&R confirms those cases reached different conclusions based on different records.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED;
3. The Commissioner's motion is GRANTED;
4. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED; and
5. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.