Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

NICOLE T. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. Commissioner Michael J. Astrue has been substituted as the named Defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Ci

DECISION AND ORDER

LAWRENCE KAHN, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on June 10, 2008 by the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 8). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Nicole T. Taylor, which were filed on June 24, 2008. Objection (Dkt. No. 9).

It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be GRANTED and the Commissioner's determination of no disability AFFIRMED, and plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in all respects.

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TAYLOR v. ASTRUE
(Aug 18, 2008)