Armando T.B. v. Becerra
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-00273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Armando T.B. v. Lee Dudek, Judge Broderick denied T.B.’s motion and directed judgment for the Social Security Commissioner.
Armando T.B.’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits was rejected, and the Commissioner of Social Security obtained judgment in the case.
What happened
Armando T.B. v. Lee Dudek concerns T.B.’s request for court review of a decision finding him ineligible for Disability Insurance Benefits. T.B. asked for judgment on the pleadings, meaning a decision based on the parties’ written submissions.
A magistrate judge recommended denying T.B.’s motion and ending the case. T.B.’s objections largely repeated his original arguments and did not identify specific errors in the recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error—an obvious mistake—and found none.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled the objections, adopted the recommendation in full, denied T.B.’s motion, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.
The detailed version
- Armando T.B. v. Becerra · No. 1:23-cv-00273
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 18, 2025
Background
Armando T.B. brought this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that he was not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits. T.B. moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and related written submissions.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. Judge Jones issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that T.B.’s motion be denied and that the case be dismissed. T.B. filed objections, and the Commissioner responded. The opinion states that Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek was automatically substituted as the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
Court’s Analysis
The district court explained that objections to a magistrate judge’s report must be specific and directed at particular findings. When objections are general, conclusory, or merely repeat arguments previously presented, the district court reviews the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the factual or legal conclusions.
The court found that T.B.’s objections were essentially a copy of his motion for judgment on the pleadings. They used the same headings, subheadings, and table-of-contents page numbers, did not cite any part of the Report, and presented no new factual or legal arguments. The court therefore reviewed Judge Jones’s Report for clear error and found none. It adopted the Report in its entirety. The opinion does not repeat the Report’s full analysis of the administrative record.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled T.B.’s objections and adopted the Report in full. T.B.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment on behalf of the defendant, close the case, and close the motion at Document 12.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.