Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 26, 2025

Malone v. O'Malley

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:24-cv-07341
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Malone v. O'Malley, Judge Oetken granted Malone’s motion and remanded his Social Security case for further proceedings.

Who this affects

Travis J. Malone and the Social Security Commissioner; the case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

What happened

Travis J. Malone asked the court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his claim for Supplemental Security Income in Malone v. O'Malley.

A magistrate judge recommended granting Malone’s request for judgment on the pleadings and sending the case back to the Commissioner for further proceedings. No party timely objected to that recommendation.

Judge Oetken found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, granted Malone’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Malone v. O'Malley · No. 1:24-cv-07341
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Aug. 26, 2025

Background

Travis J. Malone filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision. He challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his claim for Supplemental Security Income. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for a report and recommendation concerning any motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion asking the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written submissions.

Report and Recommendation

Malone moved for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Ricardo issued a report and recommendation advising the court to grant the motion and remand the case to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings. Neither party filed a timely objection. Because there were no timely objections, Judge Oetken reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record.

Ruling

Judge Oetken found no clear error and fully adopted Judge Ricardo’s report and recommendation. Under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court granted Malone’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.