Taylencia C. B. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-08801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Taylencia C. B. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Oetken dismissed the case without prejudice because Taylencia had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Taylencia C. B.’s court challenge to the denial of her disability-benefits application was dismissed without prejudice because she had not exhausted administrative remedies. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
Taylencia C. B. asked the Southern District of New York to review the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her disability-benefits claim. The Commissioner asked the court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, grant summary judgment.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion and dismissing the case without prejudice because Taylencia had not completed the required administrative process. No party timely objected to that recommendation.
Judge Oetken reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to a future action challenging the Commissioner’s final decision, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Taylencia C. B. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-08801
- James Oetken
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Taylencia C. B. filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows court review of certain Social Security decisions. She sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability benefits.
The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses for a report and recommendation concerning any motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner later moved to dismiss the claims or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Moses recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion and dismissing the action without prejudice because Taylencia C. B. had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, meaning she had not completed the required administrative process before seeking judicial review.
No party filed a timely objection. Because there was no timely objection, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—that is, an obvious mistake on the face of the record.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken found no clear error and fully adopted the report and recommendation. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to any future action by Taylencia C. B. challenging the Commissioner’s final decision on her disability-benefits application. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.