Nasta v. Berryhill
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-03311
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nasta v. Saul, Judge Liman adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Demetrios Nasta, whose Social Security case was resolved against him when the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; the case was then closed.
What happened
In Nasta v. Saul, Demetrios Nasta challenged a decision involving the Social Security Administration. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute in detail.
Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties were given fourteen days to object, but neither party filed an objection.
Judge Lewis J. Liman reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it entirely, and granted the Commissioner’s motion. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Nasta v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-03311
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
Demetrios Nasta brought this Social Security case against Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The opinion does not state the specific underlying benefits issue or explain the parties’ substantive arguments.
On August 24, 2020, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation advising the district court to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. A judgment on the pleadings is a decision based on the pleadings—such as the complaint and answer—after the parties have presented their positions.
Review of the Recommendation
The parties had fourteen days to submit written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in its entirety, and granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk of court was directed to close the case.
The supplied case-name metadata identifies the case as “Nasta v. Berryhill,” but the opinion’s caption names Andrew Saul as the defendant; this summary follows the opinion’s caption.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.