Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-05826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied fee-free appeal status.
Juleika Rosario and the Commissioner of Social Security; the judgment also affects Rosario’s ability to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
Juleika Rosario’s case against the Commissioner of Social Security was resolved by a judgment dated August 27, 2024. The judgment refers to the Court’s August 26 order but does not describe the underlying dispute or reasoning.
The court granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which decides a case from the written filings without a trial. It also denied Rosario permission to appeal without paying the required fees and closed the case.
Judge Edgardo Ramos is identified as the judge in Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment does not state whether the earlier order affirmed or otherwise addressed the Social Security decision.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-05826
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 27, 2024
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the Court’s order dated August 26, 2024, the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted. A judgment on the pleadings is a decision based on the parties’ written pleadings rather than a trial.
The judgment does not include the August 26 order, so it does not explain the legal reasoning, the specific Social Security issue, or whether the Court affirmed or remanded an agency decision.
Appeal-fee ruling and case status
The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The case was closed.
Disposition
The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted. Permission to appeal without paying the required fees was denied for purposes of an appeal, and the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.