Opinion
7:15-cv-231 (GLS/CFH)
08-29-2016
JESSIE VIVIAN DEPRONIO, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller 6000 N. Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, NY 14226 FOR THE DEFENDANT: HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261 Steven P. Conte Regional Chief Counsel Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Region II 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 OF COUNSEL: KENNETH R. HILLER, ESQ. JASON P. PECK Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller
6000 N. Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A
Amherst, NY 14226 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261 Steven P. Conte
Regional Chief Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
OF COUNSEL:
KENNETH R. HILLER, ESQ. JASON P. PECK
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary L. Sharpe Senior District Judge MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Jessie Vivian Depronio challenges defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of supplemental security income (SSI), seeking review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed March 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommended the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 11.) Pending are Depronio's objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) renders section 405(g) of Title 42 applicable to judicial review of SSI claims.
II. Background
The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and Judge Hummel. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 9 at 4-15, 10 at 2, 11 at 2-3.)
On September 20, 2010, Depronio filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"). (Tr. 70, 167-73.) After her application was denied, Depronio requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on February 6, 2012. (Id. at 35-63, 98-105, 106-08.) On September 27, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (Id. at 1-3, 8-34.)
Page references preceded by "Tr." are to the Administrative Transcript. (Dkt. No. 8.) --------
Depronio commenced the present action by filing a complaint on February 27, 2015, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl.) After receiving the parties' briefs, Judge Hummel issued an R&R recommending Depronio's motion for a finding of disability be denied and the Commissioner's decision finding no disability be affirmed. (See generally Dkt. No. 11.)
III. Standard of Review
By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer social security appeals to magistrate judges for proposed findings and recommendations as to disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 40.1, 72.3(d); General Order No. 18. Before entering final judgment, this court reviews report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party properly objects to a specific element of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In cases where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments already considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *4-5.
IV. Discussion
Depronio purports to object to the R&R on three grounds. Specifically, she asserts that Judge Hummel erred in: (1) finding that Depronio's learning disability was properly accounted for in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) finding; (2) upholding the ALJ's interpretation of the record, which was based on a selective mischaracterized reading of the evidence; and (3) upholding the ALJ's decision to diminish Depronio's credibility based on her abusive relationship. (Dkt. No. 9 at 15-24.) The substance of all three arguments, however, was previously raised in Depronio's brief, and considered and rejected by Judge Hummel. (Compare Dkt. No. 9 at 15-17, 19-24 with Dkt. No. 11 at 8-21, 25-26.) These "objections," therefore, are general and reviewed only for clear error. See Almonte, 2006 WL 149049 at *4.
Finding no clear error in the R&R, the court adopts Judge Hummel's R&R in its entirety.
V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's March 28, 2016 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Depronio's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 29, 2016
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Gary L. Sharpe
U.S. District Judge