UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KELINNE O., On Behalf of K.P.Q., 5:23-cv-812 (BKS/ML) Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner Of Social Security,

Defendant.

Appearances: For Plaintiff: Justin M. Goldstein Kenneth R. Hiller Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PLLC 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, NY 14226 For Defendant: Carla Freedman United States Attorney Fergus J. Kaiser, Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this action under

(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her minor child’s application for Supplemental Security Income. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric for a Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); Local Rule 73.2(d). On April 16, 2024, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 9, 13, 14), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No. 8), Magistrate Judge Lovric issued a Report-Recommendation recommending: that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed; that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 16). Magistrate Judge Lovric advised the parties that under

(b)(1), they had “14 days within which to file written objections” to the Report- Recommendation and that “failure to object to th[e] report within 14 days will preclude appellate review.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 13 (citing Roldan v. Racette,

(2d Cir. 1993);

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e)). No objections were filed. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue,

, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012);

(b)(1)(C). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error.

Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report- Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and

found none. For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2024 Syracuse, New York | ( Cannes da [Sarr Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge