Denver v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X : PAUL DENVER, : : Plaintiff, : 22-CV-05103(JMF) : -v- : ORDER ADOPTING : REPORT AND MARTIN O’MALLEY, : RECOMMENDATION COMMISSIONER OF THE : SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION : : Defendant. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: This motion for attorneys’ fees was referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for a Report and Recommendation. See Docket No. 29. In a Report and Recommendation filed on September 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended that the motion be granted but that plaintiff’s counsel be required to remit to Plaintiff the $6,500.00 fee awarded by this Court on May 9, 2023, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See Docket No. 32.

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object.

See Docket No.32. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called the parties’ attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, all rights to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review have been waived. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008).

Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the petition and the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 25.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2024 New York, New York SSE RMAN ited States District Judge