Marland v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ NICOLE MICHELLE M., Plaintiff, 5:22-cv-634 (GLS/DEP) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________ SUMMARY ORDER Pending is plaintiff Nicole Michelle M.’s objection to a Report and Recommendation (R&R), (Dkt. No. 22), which recommends, among other things, that defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed, (Dkt. No. 21). The objection, which faults the R&R’s conclusion that the administrative law judge (ALJ) correctly evaluated the opinion evidence, “centers on the fact that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinions of Drs. [M. Marlene] Ryan and [Gerald] Koocher.” (Dkt. No. 22 at 1.) The specifics of Nicole’s arguments now are identical to those presented in her memorandum of law in support of her motion for judgment on the pleadings.1 (Compare Dkt. No. 12 at 12-20, with Dkt. No. 22 at 1-5.) The objection, which repeats the substance of the only argument made in Nicole’s underlying brief, (Dkt. No. 12 at 12-20), and was directly considered by Magistrate Judge Peebles, is general and triggers review for clear error only. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484, 2006 WL 149049, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). After carefully considering the R&R and finding no clear error therein, it is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Nicole’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED; and it is further 1 To the extent that the objection contends that Magistrate Judge Peebles “cherry-pick[ed] evidence,” or “found” or “contends” one thing or another with respect to the disability determination, (Dkt. No. 22 at 2, 3, 4), it misses the mark. Upon review of an appeal of a denial of Social Security benefits, the district court’s role is to review the determination and decide if it is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error; not to find, contend, or cherry pick anything. The objection, apparently in an effort to specifically attack the R&R and invoke de novo review, attempts to impute the alleged mistakes by the ALJ to the Magistrate Judge, which reflects a misunderstanding of the court’s role in the litigation. 2 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 Practice. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 20, 2023 |. 2 Albany, New York : S.Disinict Judge