Privitello v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2014cv00295 - Document 18 (N.D.N.Y 2015)

Court Description: DECISION and ORDER that Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 17 , is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED, and plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1 , is DISMISSED.. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/15/2015. (lah) [copy served on pltf by certified return receipt mail]

Download PDF
Privitello v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ SANDRA L. PRIVITELLO, Plaintiff, 1:14-CV-0295 (GTS/RFT) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: SANDRA L. PRIVITELLO Plaintiff, Pro Se 6 Fairview Street South Glens Falls, New York 12803 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this action by Sandra L. Privitello against the Commissioner of Social Security for disability benefits, is a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece, filed on August 10, 2015, recommending that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be affirmed, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 17.) 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 Treece’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court Dockets.Justia.com can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 The Court would add only that (1) it has carefully weighed the factors governing a dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and finds that they weigh decidedly in favor of dismissal under the circumstances, and (2) alternatively, it has reviewed the Commissioner’s unopposed motion and finds it to possess facial merit. (Dkt. No. 16.) For all of these reasons, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Treece’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: September 15, 2015 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief, U.S. District Judge 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that 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). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.