UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ CODY W., Plaintiff, 3:21-cv-515 (GLS/DEP) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________ SUMMARY ORDER Pending is an objection to a Report and Recommendation (R&R), (Dkt. No. 19), which, among other things, recommends that defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed, the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and

plaintiff Cody W.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (Dkt. No. 18). As is pertinent to the objection, the R&R reasons that “[b]ecause [the treating physician’s assistant (PA)] is not an acceptable medical source . . . her opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, despite the

fact that she reports having a treating relationship with [Cody].” (Dkt. No. 18 at 15.) The R&R also commented that, although the evaluation of the PA’s opinion by the administrative law judge (ALJ) was “only marginally illuminating at best, a reading of his decision as a whole provides a basis for meaningful review.” (Id.)

Cody objects to the R&R’s conclusion that the ALJ “adequately evaluated” the PA’s opinion. (Dkt. No. 19 at 1.) Cody repeats arguments made in the underlying briefing that, among other things, the ALJ had an

obligation to “look[] at” certain factors in evaluating the opinion and failed to do so, rendering his decision unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 2-4; Dkt. No. 12 at 8-11.) Because the substance of the objection was argued in the prior briefing, the objection is general and warrants review for

clear error only. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. CIV. 904CV484GLS,

, at *4-*5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). Having carefully reviewed the R&R and finding no clear error,1 it is

adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the

1 Notably, the Commissioner responded to Cody’s objection, and provides good reasons for adopting the R&R over the objections, which the court adopts. (Dkt. No. 20.) 2 pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Cody’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Cody's 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 1S SO ORDERED. September 29, 2022 □ □ | Albany, New York S District Judge