Serbun v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL R. S., Plaintiff, 5:25-CV-0979 (GTS/ML) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: OLINSKY LAW GROUP HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff 250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210 Syracuse, NY 13202 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL FERGUS J. KAISER, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric, filed on September 4, 2026, recommending that (1) Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and (3) the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits be affirmed. (Dkt. No. 14.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Lovric’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report- Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Lovric employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 19.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 11) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED. 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal Dated: September 25, 2026 Syracuse, New York he Ydothty— HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY United States District Judge