Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-06184
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Karas affirmed the benefits denial, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the case.
Michael A. Smith Sr. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the court entered judgment for the Commissioner and closed the case.
What happened
In Michael A. Smith Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Smith asked the court to review the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits.
A magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner’s decision and dismissing the case. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the recommendation in full, affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, dismissed the case, entered judgment for the Commissioner, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:23-cv-06184
- Kenneth Karas
- July 2, 2024
Background
Michael A. Smith Sr. brought this action against the Commissioner of Social Security seeking judicial review of the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act.
The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. Judge Jones issued a Report and Recommendation on June 17, 2024, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and that the case be dismissed. The opinion states that no objections were filed.
Court’s Review
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no substantive error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, dismissed the case, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the Commissioner, and directed that the case be closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.