Hatfield v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2016cv00054 - Document 34 (N.D.N.Y 2017)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 31 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The Commissioner's determination denying disability benefits is affirmed, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 3/28/17. (lmw)(Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail)

Download PDF
Hatfield v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ MICHAEL D. HATFIELD, Plaintiff, 5:16-CV-0054 (GTS/WBC) v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL D. HATFIELD Plaintiff, Pro Se P.O. Box 172 Hannibal, New York 13074 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 KATHRYN S. POLLACK, ESQ. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this action filed by Michael D. Hatfield (“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking Social Security benefits, is the Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter recommending that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 31.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Dockets.Justia.com 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 (Dkt. No. 31.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted; the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: March 28, 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.