UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALICIA B., on behalf of M.B.,

Plaintiff, 3:23-CV-1611 (BKS/PJE)

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Appearances: For Plaintiff: Justin M. Goldstein Hiller Comerford Injury & Disability Law 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a Amherst, NY 14226

For Defendant: Carla Freedman United States Attorney Johanny Santana, 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 on behalf of minor M.B., under

(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of M.B.’s application for supplemental security income benefits. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for a Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 5); Local Rule 72.3(e). On November 1, 2024, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 11, 13, 14), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No. 10), Magistrate Judge Hummel issued a Report- Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; and that the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 15). Magistrate Judge Hummel 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. 15, at 26 (citing Roldan v. Racette,

(2d Cir. 1993);

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 & 6(a)).1 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 Hummel’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 Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 13)

1 Following Magistrate Judge Hummel’s issuance of the Report-Recommendation, this case was reassigned to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista. (Dkt. No. 16). is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2025 ronda (CGirnnes Syracuse, New York Chiet US. Distt Judge