Waterstripe v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ RHONDA KAY W., Plaintiff, 5:21-cv-1387 (GLS/DEP) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________ SUMMARY ORDER Pending is plaintiff’s objection to a Report and Recommendation (R&R), (Dkt. No. 18), which recommends that defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed, (Dkt. No. 17). The objection is two- fold: first, plaintiff contends that the R&R improperly concludes that the weight given to the opinion of a treating doctor was supported by substantial evidence, and, second, she argues that the R&R incorrectly concluded that the ALJ’s determination of the weight given to the opinions of a physical therapist and physician’s assistant was supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 18 at 1-3.) The objection, which repeats the substance of arguments made in plaintiff’s underlying brief, (Dkt. No. 7 at 16-25), that were rejected by the magistrate judge, 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 and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 7) 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 consider the objection 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 recommendation and because of the arguments advanced by the Commissioner in her response to the objection. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 19.) 2 Practice. IT 1S SO ORDERED. March 30, 2023 L. Albany, New York 3 Disinict Judge