Canady v. Berryhill, 1:17-CV-0367 (GTS/WBC). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. New York
Number: infdco20171115e05
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2017
Summary: DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY , Chief District Judge . The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on October 4, 2017 recommending that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits be affirmed, and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 15.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. ( See gen
Summary: DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY , Chief District Judge . The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on October 4, 2017 recommending that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits be affirmed, and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 15.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. ( See gene..
More
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief District Judge.
The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on October 4, 2017 recommending that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits be affirmed, and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 15.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Carter's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 15.) As a result, the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is affirmed, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED, and that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
FootNotes
1. When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a "clear error" review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Source: Leagle
