O'Dett v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
NICOLE O.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	5:24-CV-1221
(MAD/ML)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD INJURY 	JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
& DISABILITY LAW 	MARY ELLEN GILL, ESQ.
6000 North Bailey Avenue - Suite 1a
Amherst, New York 14226
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	MOLLY CARTER, ESQ.
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorney for Defendant
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff Nicole O. commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review
of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying her
application for disability insurance benefits. See Dkt. No. 1.
In a Report -Recommendation dated December 23, 2025, Magistrate Miroslav Lovric
recommended that (1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; (2) Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; and (3) the Commissioner's decision be
affirmed. See Dkt. No. 18. Neither party filed objections.
Case 5:24-cv-01221-MAD-ML Document 19 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
When no objections are made to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the Court reviews a
report-recommendation for only clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 229
(N.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Note: 1983). "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. (quotation and footnote
omitted). After the appropriate review, "the 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).
The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation.
Specifically, the Court finds no error in the determination that the ALJ sufficiently discussed
Plaintiff's need to use the restroom, her ability to remain on task, and her mental health symptoms
as part of his RFC determination. As Magistrate Judge Lovric stated, "the ALJ's decision devoted
significant analysis to Plaintiff's treatment history for digestive and gastrointestinal issues and her
response to that treatment" and "thorough[ly] analy[zed]" the mental health medical "opinion and
Plaintiff's mental health history." Dkt. No. 18 at 11, 16. Indeed, the ALJ's decision addressed
those issues more completely than the undersigned often observes in ruling on Social Security
appeals. Plaintiff's disagreement with the ALJ's decision is not a basis for remand as "[t]he Court
must 'defer to the Commissioner's resolution of conflicting evidence' and reject the ALJ's findings
'only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.'" Traci R. o/b/o E.A.O.B. v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:21-CV-607, 2022 WL 4354367, *12 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2022)
(quoting Morris v. Berryhill, 721 Fed. Appx. 25, 29 (2d Cir. 2018)).
This is not a case where the ALJ ignored a plaintiff's need to use the restroom, inability to
stay on task, or mental health symptoms. See Dkt. No. 18 at 12-13 (collecting cases).
Importantly, the ALJ included ready access to bathrooms in his RFC determination solely because
Case 5:24-cv-01221-MAD-ML Document 19 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
of Plaintiff's subjective complaints. See Dkt. No. 9 at 33; see also Melissa D. v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00652, 2023 WL 2364814, *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023) (concluding that
remand was not warranted on this basis because "the ALJ permissibly partially credited [the
p]laintiff's subjective complaints and accordingly included in the RFC finding a limitation for
time off-task and bathroom breaks that was not identified by the medical opinions of record").
Magistrate Judge Lovric is correct in deferring to the ALJ's resolution of the evidence which
suggests that although Plaintiff requires ready access to a restroom, she is still able to perform the
range of work the ALJ identified. See Dkt. No. 18 at 12-15.
Likewise, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lovric's opinion that the ALJ
appropriately considered and discussed Plaintiff's mental health limitations. See id. at 16-17.
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions in her brief, see Dkt. No. 13-1 at 12, the ALJ did not ignore any
portion of the mental health opinion in the record. See Dkt. No. 9 at 27. The ALJ thoroughly
discussed Plaintiff's mental health limitations and the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge
Lovric's recommendation to uphold the ALJ's conclusions related thereto.
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the Report-Recommendation, the entire record in
this matter, and the applicable law, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is
ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 13) is DENIED;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16) is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED; and the Court further
Case 5:24-cv-01221-MAD-ML Document 19 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendant's favor and
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 5:24-cv-01221-MAD-ML Document 19 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 4