Dry v. Berryhill, No. 1:2017cv01254 - Document 17 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Tracey Dry, 14 CROSS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Nancy Berryhill. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Netburn's thorough and w ell-reasoned Report and finds no error, clear or otherwise. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. The Commissioner's Rule 12(c) motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's is DENIED. Plaintiff's failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 CIV. 1104(DLC), 2008 WL 3852051, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008) (citing United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Docs. 12 and 14, and to close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/20/2018) (anc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TRACEY DRY, Plaintiff, -against- OPINION AND ORDER 17 Civ. 1254 (ER) (SN) NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Ramos, D.J.: Tracey Dry (“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 benefits. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). On January 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted and Plaintiff’s motion be denied, 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report and
]]>
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.
