Lovejoy v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2021cv01212 - Document 21 (N.D.N.Y 2023)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: that Plaintiff's objections, dkt. # 19 , to the Report-Recommendation of Judge Peebles, are hereby Overrulled. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 18 , is hereby Accepted and Adopted. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on t he pleadings, dkt. # 11 , is hereby Denied. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dkt. # 15 , is hereby Granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby Dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 03/16/2023. (hmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lovejoy v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 21 Case 5:21-cv-01212-TJM-DEP Document 21 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ REBECCA L., Plaintiff, vs. 5:21-CV-1212 (TJM/DEP) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER The Court referred this Complaint, which Plaintiff brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to challenge the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for social security disability benefits, to Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Plaintiff alleges that the Commissioner failed to follow the relevant legal standards and lacked substantial evidence for denying her application. Judge Peebles Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 18, issued December 7, 2022, recommends that the Court grant the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and deny the Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and close the case. Judge Peebles rejects Plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ ignored relevant evidence of her limitations and failed to credit certain opinion evidence properly. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:21-cv-01212-TJM-DEP Document 21 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 3 Plaintiff objected to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 19. She contends that Judge Peebles excused clear errors by the ALJ in interpreting expert opinion and ignored evidence of Plaintiff’s daily activities that undermined the ALJ’s findings. The Commissioner responded to the Plaintiff’s objections. See dkt. # 20. W hen a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the other issues raised in the Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to overrule Plaintiff’s objections accept and adopt the recommendation of Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. Accordingly: Plaintiff’s objections, dkt. # 19, to the Report-Recommendation of Judge Peebles, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 18, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dkt. # 11, is hereby DENIED. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dkt. # 15, is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 2 Case 5:21-cv-01212-TJM-DEP Document 21 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 16, 2023 3
]]>
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.
