Barthelemy v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-12236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barthelemy v. Commissioner, Judge Ramos adopted the report, granted the Commissioner’s motion, denied Barthelemy’s motion, and closed the case.
Almanosta Barthelemy’s challenge to the denial of supplemental security income was unsuccessful. The Commissioner’s motion was granted, Barthelemy’s motion was denied, judgment was entered, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Barthelemy v. Commissioner of Social Security, Almanosta Barthelemy challenged the denial of her application for supplemental security income. The parties asked the court to rule based on their written submissions.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion and denying Barthelemy’s motion. Barthelemy objected, but her objections repeated her earlier arguments and did not identify an error in the recommendation.
Judge Ramos found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, granted the Commissioner’s motion, denied Barthelemy’s motion, entered judgment, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Barthelemy v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-12236
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
Almanosta Barthelemy brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for supplemental security income. Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), asking the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and written submissions.
Report and Recommendation
On November 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion and denying Barthelemy’s motion. The recommendation explained that the Commissioner’s decision should stand. Barthelemy filed an objection within the permitted time.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that Barthelemy’s objection repeated the arguments she had already made and did not identify any fact that the recommendation had overlooked or misunderstood, or any legal conclusion that was erroneous. Because the objection was general and repetitive, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than reconsidering the disputed issues from the beginning. The court found no clear error.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It granted the Commissioner’s Rule 12(c) motion and denied Barthelemy’s motion. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment, terminate the motions, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.