Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 6, 2020

Cepeda v. Berryhill

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-07304
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cepeda v. Berryhill, Judge Schofield vacated the Social Security decision, granted Cepeda’s motion, denied Berryhill’s motion, and ordered further proceedings.

Who this affects

Guillermo Cepeda’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits must receive further proceedings before the Social Security Administration; Nancy A. Berryhill’s motion was denied.

What happened

In Cepeda v. Berryhill, Guillermo Cepeda challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. A magistrate judge recommended vacating that decision and sending the case back to the agency.

No timely objections were filed to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The District Court reviewed the record for clear error and found none.

Judge Schofield adopted the recommendation in full, granted Cepeda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied Berryhill’s motion, vacated the benefits decision, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cepeda v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-07304
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 6, 2020

Background

Guillermo Cepeda sought Supplemental Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied his application. Cepeda moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing court filings. Nancy A. Berryhill also moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Report and Recommendation

On December 12, 2019, a magistrate judge recommended granting Cepeda’s motion, denying Berryhill’s motion, vacating the Commissioner’s decision, and remanding the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The deadline for objections was December 26, 2019, and no timely objections were filed.

Ruling

Because no timely objections were filed, the District Court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Judge Schofield therefore granted Cepeda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied Berryhill’s motion, vacated the Commissioner’s denial of Cepeda’s application, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The Clerk was directed to close the motions and 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.