Aukima Nyree Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-07906
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos adopted a recommendation, granted Williams’s motion in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Aukima Nyree Williams and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security administration for further proceedings.
What happened
Aukima Nyree Williams challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The case was reviewed by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones.
Judge Jones recommended granting Williams’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and sending the case back for further administrative proceedings. He recommended developing the record and evaluating Williams’s ability to meet the mental demands of basic work activity. No party objected to the recommendation.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found no error and adopted the recommendation. The court granted Williams’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
The detailed version
- Aukima Nyree Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-07906
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
Aukima Nyree Williams brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 16, 2025. He recommended that Williams’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, in part, and that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Specifically, he recommended further development of the record and an assessment of Williams’s ability to meet the mental demands of basic work activity based on an adequate record.
Review of the Recommendation
The parties had fourteen days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and stated that it found no error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos adopted Magistrate Judge Jones’s Report and Recommendation. The court granted Williams’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.