Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled May 27, 2020

Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:18-cv-08433
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Nathan adopted the recommendation and granted the unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Who this affects

Norisha Ramos Soto, acting on behalf of A.A.R., and the Commissioner of Social Security.

What happened

In Norisha Ramos Soto on behalf of A.A.R. v. Commissioner of Social Security, a magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute or the recommendation’s reasoning.

No objections were filed by the February 18, 2020 deadline. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted the recommendation in full, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case, and directed that a copy be mailed to the pro se plaintiff.

The detailed version

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

Case
Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-08433
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
May 27, 2020

Background

The court considered a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant the Commissioner of Social Security’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The opinion does not state the underlying benefits issue or explain the recommendation’s substantive reasoning.

Review of the Recommendation

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommendation. If a party objects, the district court reviews the challenged portions independently. When no objection is filed, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record.

Objections were due February 18, 2020. As of May 27, 2020, none had been filed. The court therefore applied clear-error review and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for the reasons stated in the recommendation. The Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case. The court also directed that a copy of the opinion and order be mailed to the pro se plaintiff, with the mailing noted on the public docket.

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.