Jones v. Berryhill
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-11233
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones v. Berryhill, Judge Swain denied Jones’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Berryhill’s.
Janis Jones and Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
What happened
In Jones v. Berryhill, Janis Jones and Nancy A. Berryhill filed competing motions asking the court to decide the case based on the written record.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation that Jones’s motion be denied and Berryhill’s motion be granted. No one objected to the recommendation, and the court found no clear error in it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain adopted the recommendation in full, denied Jones’s motion, granted Berryhill’s motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-11233
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
Janis Jones, the plaintiff, and Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings. That type of motion asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written submissions. The opinion provided here does not include the underlying Report and Recommendation’s analysis of the Social Security issue.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying Jones’s motion and granting Berryhill’s motion. The parties did not file objections to the recommendation. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the record for clear error—an obvious mistake apparent from the record.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain found no clear error and adopted Magistrate Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Jones’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Berryhill’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order resolved docket entries 17 and 19 and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. The supplied opinion does not state the underlying reasons for the recommended result.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.