Bunbury v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-10722
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bunbury v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Furman adopted the recommendation, granted Bunbury’s motion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Wilma W. Bunbury and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was returned to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
What happened
In Bunbury v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court reviewed competing requests for judgment based on the existing court record in a Social Security case. A magistrate judge recommended granting Wilma W. Bunbury’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s motion.
The Commissioner did not file objections or request more time to do so. The court therefore found that the Commissioner had given up the right to object to the recommendation or seek appellate review, but it still reviewed the recommendation and the record.
Judge Furman found the magistrate judge’s reasoning about errors by the administrative law judge well supported. He adopted the recommendation in full, granted Bunbury’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and sent the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The court then closed the case.
The detailed version
- Bunbury v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-10722
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 13, 2019
Background
The court referred the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings—motions asking the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and administrative record—to Magistrate Judge Fox. Magistrate Judge Fox recommended that the Commissioner’s motion be denied and Wilma W. Bunbury’s motion be granted.
Objections to the recommendation
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. The Commissioner filed no objections and did not request an extension. The court therefore held that the Commissioner waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Even so, the court reviewed the petition and the recommendation. It concluded that the magistrate judge’s reasoning concerning errors by the administrative law judge was well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Bunbury’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.