Jones v. Berryhill
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-00056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. Berryhill, Judge Torres adopted the recommendation, granted Jones’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the Social Security case.
Tracy Lamont Jones and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was returned for further proceedings.
What happened
In Jones v. Berryhill, Tracy Lamont Jones challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision. The opinion says a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, but it does not describe the underlying reasoning.
No party objected to the report and recommendation. The court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none, so it adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Analisa Torres granted Jones’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, reversed the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The court directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-00056
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
Tracy Lamont Jones brought this Social Security case against the Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion concerns motions for judgment on the pleadings, which ask the court to decide a case based on the pleadings and the applicable law. The court’s order does not describe the underlying benefits dispute or the reasoning in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (R&R).
The docket caption names Andrew M. Saul as the defendant. A footnote states that Saul was substituted for Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill after Saul was appointed Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Review of the Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the R&R. Because no party filed objections, Judge Torres reviewed the R&R for clear error—an obvious mistake—and found none. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety.
Ruling
The court granted Jones’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.