Pierson v. Commissioner of Social Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KEITH R. P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY and
H. MORRIS-GLASS,
Defendants.
5:24-cv-1489 (BKS/PJE)
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
Case 5:24-cv-01489-BKS-PJE Document 17 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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
Case 5:24-cv-01489-BKS-PJE Document 17 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Case 5:24-cv-01489-BKS-PJE Document 17 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3