You're viewing Docket Item 25 from the case Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-07129-LGS-SN Document 25 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------
X
:

ORLANDO DONES FIGUEROA,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X


-------------------------------------------------------------

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:


COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff,

-against-



7/11/13










12 Civ. 07129 (LGS)



MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER



Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Netburn (Dkt.

No. 24) (“Report”), recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack

of Jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) (Dkt. No. 16)

(“Motion”).

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on September 20, 2012 (Dkt. No. 2), seeking

judicial review of a favorable decision of the Commissioner of Social Security awarding him

Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Netburn on October 12, 2012. (Dkt. No. 8).

On March 12, 2013, Defendant filed the present Motion, requesting that the Court dismiss the

Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 14, 2013, Judge Netburn

issued the Report, recommending that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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). The district court “may adopt those portions of the report to

Case 1:12-cv-07129-LGS-SN Document 25 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 2

which no ‘specific, written objection’ is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting

the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.” Adams v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).

Having reviewed the Report, to which no objection was made, the Court finds no clear

error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety as the

decision of the Court. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED, and this case

is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court further finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this

Order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962).

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff and close this

case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2013


New York, New York










2