Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security et al, No. 1:2016cv02073 - Document 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation re: 8 MOTION to Dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Fox's th orough and well-reasoned Report and finds no error, clear or otherwise. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. The Commissioner's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate th e motion, Doc. 8, to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff, and to close the case. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/4/2017) (mro)
Download PDF
Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security et al Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DALGENA SUAREZ, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER -against- 16 Civ. 2073 (ER) (KNF) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Ramos, D.J.: Dalgena Suarez (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Pending before the Court is the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(a). On November 18, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss be granted and notifying the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report to file written objections. No objections were subsequently filed. I. Standard of Review A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise “specific,” “written” objections to the report and recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy.” Id.; see also 1
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.