Keith R. P. v. Commissioner of Social Security and H. Morris-Glass

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEITH R. P., Plaintiff, 5:24-cv-1489 (BKS/PJE) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY and H. MORRIS-GLASS, Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff pro se: Keith R. P. Bernhards Bay, NY 13028 For Defendant Commissioner of Social Security: Kristina D. Cohn, 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 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. (Dkt. No. 1). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista for a Report- Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 4); L.R. 72.3(e). On February 25, 2026, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 7, 15), and the Administrative Transcript, (Dkt. No. 12), Magistrate Judge Evangelista 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 any claims against H. Morris Glass be dismissed without prejudice and without opportunity to amend. (Dkt. No. 16). Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had “fourteen 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 27 (citing Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72). 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, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings and recommendations as to which there was no properly preserved objection are reviewed for clear error. Petersen, 2 F. Supp. at 228–29. Neither of the parties has raised any objection to Magistrate Judge Evangelista’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 Evangelista’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ADOPTED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that any claims Plaintiff seeks to proceed with against Defendant H. Morris Glass are DISMISSED without prejudice and without opportunity to amend; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2026 Syracuse, New York Brenda K. Sannes Chief U.S. District Judge