Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled June 13, 2025

Yaneilis R. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Jones
Docket
1:24-cv-04823
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Yaneilis R. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Jones denied review, affirmed the benefits denial, and dismissed the case after late filings and nonprosecution.

Who this affects

Yaneilis R.’s request for judicial review of the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits was denied; the Commissioner’s denial was affirmed, and the case was dismissed.

What happened

In Yaneilis R. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Yaneilis R., representing herself, asked the court to review the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits.

She did not file the required motions or brief by the deadlines, did not respond to several court orders, and did not confirm or correct her mailing address. The court ruled that she had not timely requested review of the administrative law judge’s denial and that the Appeals Council did not abuse its discretion by finding no good cause for the late filing.

Judge Gary R. Jones denied Yaneilis R.’s request for review, affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and dismissed the case. The court also stated that dismissal was additionally and alternatively warranted because she failed to prosecute the case and respond to court orders.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Yaneilis R. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-04823
Judge
Jones
Date
June 13, 2025

Background

Yaneilis R. filed this case without a lawyer seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court set a deadline for her to file a motion requesting judgment, later extended that deadline, and then ordered her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. She did not respond, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

The court later granted Yaneilis R.’s motion to reopen the case and directed her to file a supporting brief. She did not file the brief. The Commissioner filed an opposition brief. The court then issued two orders directing Yaneilis R. to confirm or correct her mailing address and warning that failure to respond could result in a decision without further briefing. She did not respond to either order or otherwise take steps to prosecute the case.

Ruling

The court denied Yaneilis R.’s request for review, affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and dismissed the case, relying substantially on the Commissioner’s brief. The court explained that Yaneilis R. did not timely request review of the administrative law judge’s denial of benefits and that the Appeals Council did not abuse its discretion in finding that she had not shown good cause for filing late.

The court also ruled that dismissal was additionally and alternatively warranted because Yaneilis R. failed to prosecute the case, respond to court orders, and maintain an updated mailing address. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.