Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 20, 2020

Velilla v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:16-cv-04317
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Velilla v. Commissioner, Judge Preska denied Velilla’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion.

Who this affects

Marcos Velilla and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order closed the action and resolved the pending motions.

What happened

In Velilla v. Commissioner of Social Security, Marcos Velilla asked the court to rule in his favor based on the written court filings. The Commissioner of Social Security opposed that request and filed a cross-motion seeking judgment in the Commissioner’s favor.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended denying Velilla’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Neither party objected within the allowed 14-day period.

Judge Loretta A. Preska reviewed the record for clear error, found none, and adopted the recommendation in full. Judge Preska therefore denied Velilla’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, closed the case, and denied all pending motions as moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velilla v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:16-cv-04317
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
Aug. 20, 2020

Background

Marcos Velilla was the plaintiff, and the Commissioner of Social Security was the defendant. The opinion states that Velilla filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. A judgment on the pleadings is a decision based on the parties’ written submissions when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed.

On August 22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued a Report and Recommendation advising that Velilla’s motion be denied and the Commissioner’s cross-motion be granted. The parties were given 14 days to submit objections, but neither party objected.

Court’s Review and Ruling

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the court’s opinion.

The order denied Velilla’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. It also directed the Clerk to close the action and denied all pending motions as moot. The excerpt does not explain the underlying Social Security dispute or provide the reasoning contained in the adopted Report and Recommendation.

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.