UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT luenesoxy PRAY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | ROC ; URS TERRE ALL □□□

| BABE. PY Saye 21.2019 Yasmin Vargas, STL Sn

Plaintiff, 18-cv-4760 (AJN) (OTW) oe nme ORDER Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Before the Court is Judge Wang’s Report & Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court deny the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this pro se Plaintiff's appeal of an administrative denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance under the Social Security Act. See Dkt. No. 17. When considering the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify [them], in whole or in part.”

(b) (1). The Court must make a de novo determination of any portions of a magistrate’s report or findings to which a party raises an objection, and reviews only for “clear error on the face of the record” when there are no objections to the R & R. Brennan vy. Colvin, No. 13-CV-6338 (AJN) (RLE),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015), see also Hicks y. Ercole, No. 09—cv—2531 (AJN) (MHD),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015); Gomez v. Brown,

(S.D.N.Y. 2009). Clear error is found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Laster v. Mancini, No. 07-CV-8265 (DAB) (MHD),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013) (quoting United States v. Snow,

(2d Cir. 2006)). Objections to Judge Wang’s R & R were due by August 2, 2019. See Dkt. No. 17 at 18. As of August 12, 2019, no objections have been filed. The Court thus reviews the R & R for clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the R & R in its entirety and DENIES Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner, on the grounds described by Judge Wang. The Court further finds pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). This order resolves Docket No. 13. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case. Chambers will mail a copy of this order to the pro se Petitioner and note its mailing on the public docket.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August QO , 2019 4 New York, New York | i a

ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge