Cirelli v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-02709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cirelli v. Commissioner, Judge Ramos granted in part and denied in part Cirelli’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and ordered further proceedings.
Christopher Cirelli’s application for disability insurance benefits was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
What happened
In Cirelli v. Commissioner of Social Security, Christopher Cirelli challenged the decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. Both sides asked the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings.
A magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Cirelli’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s motion, vacating the benefits decision, and sending the case back for further proceedings. Neither side objected within the allowed fourteen days.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found no error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted in part and denied in part Cirelli’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, vacated the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Cirelli v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-02709
- Edgardo Ramos
- June 19, 2020
Background
Christopher Cirelli brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision. He challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), asking the court to decide the case based on the pleadings.
Report and Recommendation
On May 7, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation. It recommended that Cirelli’s motion be granted in part and denied in part, that the Commissioner’s motion be denied in its entirety, that the Commissioner’s decision be vacated, and that the case be remanded for further proceedings. The parties had fourteen days to file written objections, but neither party filed an objection.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because no objections were filed, the district court could adopt the uncontested portions of the recommendation unless clear error appeared. The court reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no error, and adopted Judge Aaron’s recommendations in their entirety.
The court granted in part and denied in part Cirelli’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; vacated the Commissioner’s decision; and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.