The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
LISA ANN CAPRONI BROWN, :
:
Plaintiff, : 22-CV-2452 (JMF) (SDA)
:
-v- : ORDER ADOPTING
: REPORT AND
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social : RECOMMENDATION
Security, :
:
Defendant. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge:
The Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for a Report and
Recommendation. In a Report and Recommendation filed on June 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge
Aaron recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be GRANTED, that
the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED, and that this case
be remanded for further administrative proceedings. See ECF No. 22.
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. In
addition, it expressly called the parties’ attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 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, the Commissioner has waived the right to object to the Report and
Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. 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 Report and Recommendation, unguided
by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in
fact and law. In short, the Administrative Law Judge failed to adequately explain his
determination regarding Plaintiffs need for bathroom access and corresponding time off-task.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 17 and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2023
New York, New York ESSE RMAN
nited States District Judge