Gilmore v. Commisioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ TAMMY J. G., 6:21-cv-1184 Plaintiff, (GLS/DJS) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________ SUMMARY ORDER Pending is plaintiff Tammy J. G.’s objection to a Report- Recommendation and Order (R&R), (Dkt. No. 13), which recommends that defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed, (Dkt. No. 12). Tammy objects to the R&R, arguing that its “finding that the ALJ properly built a bridge between the evidence relied upon and the ALJ’s rejection of the marked limitations contained in [the consultative examiner’s] opinion should be rejected.” (Dkt. No. 13 at 1-2.) The objection repeats the substance of arguments made in Tammy’s underlying brief, (Dkt. No. 9 at 9-14), which were rejected by the magistrate judge. Thus, Tammy’s objection is general and triggers review for clear error only.1 See Atkyns v. Colvin, No. 6:13-CV-161, 2014 WL 4637090, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014) (citing Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006)). Finding no clear error in the R&R, it is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report- Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 12) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this Summary Order to the parties in accordance with the Local Rules of 1 Even if the court were to construe plaintiff’s objections as specific and review the R&R under the de novo standard, it would reach the same conclusion that the ALJ’s determination should be affirmed for substantially the same reasons the magistrate judge recited in his R&R. (Dkt. No. 12 at 6-13.) 2 Practice. IT |S SO ORDERED. March 31, 2023 Albany, New York "S. District Judge