Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 18, 2020

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:19-cv-00171
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecuritySummary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Schofield granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, closed the case, and denied Ortiz permission to appeal without paying fees.

Who this affects

Luis D. Ortiz and the Commissioner of Social Security; the judgment also affects Ortiz’s ability to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court adopted in full a report incorporated into its August 17, 2020, order.

The court treated the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion as a request for summary judgment and granted it. The judgment states that the case was closed.

Judge Lorna Schofield’s court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ortiz permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-00171
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Aug. 18, 2020

Background

The judgment concerns Luis D. Ortiz’s case against Nancy A. Berryhill, identified in the judgment as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment refers to the court’s August 17, 2020, order and the report adopted in that order, but the provided text does not state the underlying facts or legal arguments.

Ruling

The court adopted the report in its entirety as the court’s opinion. It treated the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion as a motion for summary judgment and granted the motion. Summary judgment is a decision resolving a case when the court determines that the applicable legal standard supports judgment without a trial. The judgment states that the case was closed.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment cites a Supreme Court decision concerning good faith and nonfrivolous appellate issues.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.