Deyo Mejia v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2015cv01279 - Document 13 (N.D.N.Y 2017)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 12 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Commissioner's determination is affirmed, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/24/17. (lmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Deyo Mejia v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________ TINA ANN DEYO MEJIA, Plaintiff, 1:15-CV-1279 (GTS/WBC) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _______________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OFFICE OF PETER M. MARGOLIS Counsel for Plaintiff 7 Howard Street Catskill, New York 12414 PETER M. MARGOLIS, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SIXTINA FERNANDEZ, ESQ. OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II Counsel for Defendant or Commissioner 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above-captioned Social Security case comes to this Court following a ReportRecommendation by United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on March 1, 2017, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits be affirmed and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 12.) Objections to the ReportRecommendation 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 ReportRecommendation: Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the Dockets.Justia.com facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts.1 As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits is affirmed; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination denying Plaintiff benefits is AFFIRMED, and the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: March 24, 2017 Syracuse, New York ____________________________________ HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY Chief United States 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 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.
