Filed: Sep. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2017
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER MICHAEL A. TELESCA , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court following a Report and Recommendation (Dkt #19) filed on August 7, 2017, by the Honorable Leslie G. Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c) of the Western District of New York. In his Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Judge Foschio recommended that the decision issued by Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1 ("Def
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER MICHAEL A. TELESCA , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court following a Report and Recommendation (Dkt #19) filed on August 7, 2017, by the Honorable Leslie G. Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c) of the Western District of New York. In his Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Judge Foschio recommended that the decision issued by Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1 ("Defe..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following a Report and Recommendation (Dkt #19) filed on August 7, 2017, by the Honorable Leslie G. Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c) of the Western District of New York. In his Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Judge Foschio recommended that the decision issued by Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security1 ("Defendant") denying benefits to Laurie Luder ("Plaintiff") be affirmed in full, that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied.
The parties were given fourteen (14) days from the date of their receipt of the R&R to file objections to it. The R&R was served electronically to both parties on August 7, 2017. Therefore, objections were due by August 21, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has sought an extension of time in which to file objections.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court is required 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), and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]" id. Where no "specific written objection" is made to portions of the magistrate judge's report, the district court may adopt those portions, "as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Eisenberg v. New England Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F.Supp.2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); other citation omitted). The district court is not required to review any portion of a magistrate judge's report that is not the subject of an objection. Eisenberg, 564 F. Supp.2d at 227 (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149).
As noted above, no objections were made to any portion of the R&R, which the Court has reviewed and finds to be thorough and well-reasoned. Finding no error in the R&R, the Court accepts all of the findings and recommendations therein.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt #19) is adopted in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt #17) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt #10) is denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
