Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 19, 2025

Estrada Bonnilla v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:24-cv-07186
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Estrada Bonnilla v. Commissioner: Judge Torres granted the motion in part and remanded the benefits case for further proceedings.

Who this affects

William Alberto Estrada Bonnilla and the Commissioner of Social Security; the benefits dispute was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

What happened

In Estrada Bonnilla v. Commissioner of Social Security, William Alberto Estrada Bonnilla asked the court to review the denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits.

A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. No objections were filed, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Torres adopted the recommendation in full, granted Estrada Bonnilla’s motion in part, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Estrada Bonnilla v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-07186
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Aug. 19, 2025

Background

William Alberto Estrada Bonnilla sued the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the decision denying him disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. On March 3, 2025, Bonnilla moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, for a remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

Report and Recommendation

The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo. Judge Ricardo issued a report and recommendation advising that the case be remanded for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties had been notified of their right to object, but no objections were filed before the deadline. The court therefore reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres adopted Judge Ricardo’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Bonnilla’s motion in part and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.