MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

GARY L. SHARPE, Senior District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jessie Vivian Depronio challenges defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of supplemental security income (SSI), seeking review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).1 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed March 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommended the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 11.) Pending are Depronio's objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.

II. Background2

On September 20, 2010, Depronio filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"). (Tr.3 70, 167-73.) After her application was denied, Depronio requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on February 6, 2012. (Id. at 35-63, 98-105, 106-08.) On September 27, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (Id. at 1-3, 8-34.)

Depronio commenced the present action by filing a complaint on February 27, 2015, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl.) After receiving the parties' briefs, Judge Hummel issued an R&R recommending Depronio's motion for a finding of disability be denied and the Commissioner's decision finding no disability be affirmed. (See generally Dkt. No. 11.)

III. Standard of Review

By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer social security appeals to magistrate judges for proposed findings and recommendations as to disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 40.1, 72.3(d); General Order No. 18. Before entering final judgment, this court reviews report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party properly objects to a specific element of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In cases where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments already considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *4-5.

IV. Discussion

Depronio purports to object to the R&R on three grounds.

Specifically, she asserts that Judge Hummel erred in: (1) finding that Depronio's learning disability was properly accounted for in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) finding; (2) upholding the ALJ's interpretation of the record, which was based on a selective mischaracterized reading of the evidence; and (3) upholding the ALJ's decision to diminish Depronio's credibility based on her abusive relationship. (Dkt. No. 9 at 15-24.) The substance of all three arguments, however, was previously raised in Depronio's brief, and considered and rejected by Judge Hummel. (Compare Dkt. No. 9 at 15-17, 19-24 with Dkt. No. 11 at 8-21, 25-26.) These "objections," therefore, are general and reviewed only for clear error. See Almonte, 2006 WL 149049 at *4.

Finding no clear error in the R&R, the court adopts Judge Hummel's R&R in its entirety.

V. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's March 28, 2016 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Depronio's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.