Anzola v. Saul
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-11217
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Anzola v. Saul, Judge Broderick denied Anzola’s summary-judgment motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and affirmed the Social Security decision.
Daniel Anzola, whose Supplemental Security Income application was denied, and the Social Security Commissioner; the court affirmed the denial and substituted Andrew M. Saul as defendant.
What happened
Anzola v. Saul concerned Daniel Anzola’s request for judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income.
Anzola asked the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision through a summary-judgment motion. The Commissioner sought judgment on the pleadings, which would uphold the agency’s decision based on the case filings. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman recommended denying Anzola’s motion, granting the Commissioner’s motion, and affirming the decision. Neither party objected.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation and adopted it entirely. The court denied Anzola’s summary-judgment motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, substituted Andrew M. Saul for Nancy A. Berryhill as defendant, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Anzola v. Saul · No. 1:18-cv-11217
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Daniel Anzola brought an action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income.
Motions and Report and Recommendation
Anzola moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), seeking affirmance of the decision.
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny Anzola’s summary-judgment motion, grant the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and affirm the Commissioner’s decision. She also recommended substituting Andrew M. Saul for former Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill under Rule 25(d), because Saul had replaced Berryhill as Commissioner. Neither party filed an objection.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the disputed issues. Judge Vernon S. Broderick found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The court denied Anzola’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The court also directed the clerk to substitute Andrew M. Saul for Nancy A. Berryhill as defendant, terminate any open motions, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.