UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ NATALIE A. S., Plaintiff, 5:21-cv-24 (GLS/DJS) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Olinsky Law Group HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. 250 South Clinton Street Suite 210 Syracuse, NY 13202 FOR THE DEFENDANT: HON. CARLA B. FREEDMAN. NATASHA OELTJEN United States Attorney Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 100 Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261 Anatoly Schnaider Regional Chief Counsel Office of Regional Counsel, Region III J.F.K. Federal Building, Room 625 15 New Sudbury Street Boston, MA 02203 Gary L. Sharpe Senior District Judge MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction

Plaintiff Natalie A. S., challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) seeking review under

(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-

Recommendation and Order (R&R) issued May 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart recommended that Natalie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and the Commissioner's motion for judgment

on the pleadings be granted. (Dkt. No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the R&R, affirms the Commissioner's decision, and dismisses the complaint. II. Background

On March 23, 2018, Natalie applied for DIB. (Tr.1 at 71, 150-152.) After her application was initially denied, (id. at 78-87), she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), (id. at 88), which was

held on August 30, 2019, (id. at 30-57). On February 10, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, finding that Natalie was not disabled under the Social Security Act. (Id. 10-29.) On November 6,

1 Page references preceded by “Tr.” are to the Administrative Transcript. (Dkt. No. 9.) 2 2020, the Appeals Council denied Natalie's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner’s final determination. (Id. at 1-6.)

Natalie commenced the present action on January 8, 2021, wherein she sought review of the Commissioner’s determination. (Dkt. No. 1.) After receiving the parties’ briefs, Judge Stewart issued an R&R recommending

that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 18.) 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

(b)(1)(A), (B); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 3.1, 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. 904CV484,

, 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

3 court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See

.

IV. Discussion Natalie’s objections are two fold: she argues that (1) “the court should reject the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ adequately

evaluated Dr. Dhiman’s opinion”; and (2) “the court should reject the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ adequately evaluated plaintiff’s subjective complaints.” (Dkt. No. 19 at 1-4.) These objections are reiterations of arguments Natalie raised in her brief and were already

considered by Magistrate Judge Stewart. (Dkt. No. 14 at 10-12, Dkt. No. 19 at 1-4.) While Natalie takes issue with how these arguments were resolved, she fails to point out any particular deficiency with the R&R itself.

Thus, these objections are general and warrant review for clear error only. See Almonte,

, at *4-5. Having carefully reviewed the R&R for clear error and fining none, it is adopted in its entirety.

V. Conclusion WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No.

18) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further 4 ORDERED that Natalie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Natalie’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. August 10, 2022 Albany, New York "5. Distt i