King v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2014cv00978 - Document 14 (N.D.N.Y 2015)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 Report and Recommendations. Based upon careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. Therefore it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/15/2015. (dpk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
King v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------ADDIE MAE KING, Plaintiff, -v- 5:14-CV-978 (DNH/CFH) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: ADDIE MAE KING Plaintiff Pro Se 2005 E. Fayette Street #102 Syracuse, NY 13224 OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL Attorneys for Defendant Social Security Administration Region II 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, ESQ. DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff Addie Mae King filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. By Report-Recommendation dated December 11, 2014, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Dockets.Justia.com Commissioner's unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff's failure to timely commence this action within the sixty-day time period prescribed by law be granted. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed. Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The Commissioner's motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 15, 2015 Utica, New York. -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.
