Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-07474-LGS-GRJ
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cruz v. Commissioner, Judge Schofield adopted a recommendation granting Cruz judgment, denying the Commissioner’s motion, and remanding the Social Security case.
Diana Cruz and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
What happened
In Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security, a magistrate judge recommended granting Diana Cruz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the Commissioner’s motion.
Neither side timely objected to that recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed the record for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings under the applicable provision of the Social Security law.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-07474-LGS-GRJ
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 31, 2020
Background
On August 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Fox issued a Report and Recommendation. The recommendation proposed granting Diana Cruz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ filed pleadings, and denying the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for the same relief.
The recommendation stated that objections were due within 14 days after service. No timely objections were filed.
Court’s Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. Because no timely objection was filed, Judge Lorna G. Schofield reviewed the record for clear error on its face. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. As a result, Cruz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted as recommended, the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation and the requirements identified in sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions listed at Docket Nos. 13 and 17.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.