Lent v. Berryhill
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-01127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lent v. Commissioner, Judge Ramos granted the Commissioner’s motion and denied Lent’s challenge to the denial of supplemental security income.
Richard H. Lent’s application for supplemental security income was denied, and the Commissioner of Social Security prevailed on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.
What happened
In Lent v. Commissioner of Social Security, Richard H. Lent challenged the decision denying his application for supplemental security income. Both sides asked the court to rule based on the existing pleadings.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion and denying Lent’s motion. Neither side objected within the required fourteen days, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found no error, adopted the recommendation in full, granted the Commissioner’s motion, denied Lent’s motion, and closed the case. The opinion states that Lent’s failure to object prevents appellate review of the decision.
The detailed version
- Lent v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-01127
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
Richard H. Lent brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and existing record.
Report and Recommendation
On March 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted and Lent’s motion be denied. The parties were given fourteen days to file written objections, but neither party filed one.
Court’s analysis and ruling
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. It stated that it had carefully reviewed the recommendation and found no error, “clear or otherwise.” The court therefore adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The Commissioner’s motion was granted, and Lent’s motion was denied. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions and close the case. The opinion states that Lent’s failure to object precludes appellate review of the decision.
Scope of the opinion
The excerpt does not describe the underlying reasons for the Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income or the magistrate judge’s detailed merits analysis; it reports the district court’s adoption of the unobjected-to recommendation after clear-error review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.