Disla v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-04925
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Disla v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Broderick adopted the recommendation and denied Disla’s request to overturn the benefits decision.
Jose Manuel Disla and the Commissioner of Social Security; the ruling left in place the Commissioner’s decision that Disla was not entitled to Title II benefits.
What happened
In Disla v. Commissioner of Social Security, Jose Manuel Disla asked the court to review the Commissioner’s decision that he was not entitled to benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Disla’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asked the court to rule based on the existing court filings. Neither side objected. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record, and found none.
Judge Broderick adopted the recommendation in full and denied Disla’s motion. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Disla v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-04925
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
Jose Manuel Disla filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision that he was not entitled to benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Disla filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the parties’ existing written submissions.
Report and Recommendation
The court had referred the case to a magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Disla’s motion be denied. Neither party filed an objection or asked for more time to object.
Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court stated that it found no clear error after reviewing the recommendation.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied Disla’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in accordance with the order and close the case. The order itself does not describe the underlying benefits analysis in detail; that analysis appears in the adopted Report and Recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.