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

Lanza v. Berryhill

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:19-cv-06783
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lanza v. Berryhill, Judge Torres denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Lanza’s motion, and remanded the Social Security matter for further proceedings.

Who this affects

Richard F. Lanza’s Social Security matter was sent back to an administrative law judge for further proceedings; the defendant’s motion was denied and Lanza’s motion was granted.

What happened

Lanza v. Berryhill is a Social Security case in which the court considered the parties’ motions for judgment on the pleadings.

No party objected to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court reviewed that report for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full.

Judge Analisa Torres denied the defendant’s motion, granted the plaintiff’s motion, and sent the matter back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. The court then closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lanza v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-06783
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Sept. 18, 2020

Background

The opinion concerns a Social Security case brought by Richard F. Lanza against Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The court was asked to rule on the parties’ motions for judgment on the pleadings.

Report and Recommendation

The court received a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the report for clear error and found none. The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Ruling

The court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiff’s motion. It remanded the matter to the administrative law judge under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 13 and 15 and close the case.

What the Opinion Does Not Explain

The order does not describe the underlying reasons for the report and recommendation or the specific issues that the administrative law judge must address on remand.

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.