Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 8, 2021

Roundtree v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:19-cv-07347
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Roundtree v. Commissioner, Judge Swain granted Roundtree’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for further proceedings.

Who this affects

Michael Roundtree and the Commissioner of Social Security; the matter returns to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

What happened

In Roundtree v. Commissioner of Social Security, Michael Roundtree asked the court to rule in his favor based on the existing record. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request and sending the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

The court adopted that recommendation after finding no clear error and noting that neither side objected. It granted Roundtree’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the matter under sentence four of the governing Social Security statute.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the order on February 8, 2021, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The order does not describe the underlying Social Security issue or the additional proceedings required on remand.

The detailed version

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

Case
Roundtree v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-07347
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 8, 2021

Background

Michael Roundtree sued the Commissioner of Social Security. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation stated that Roundtree had filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, meaning a request for judgment based on the parties’ written pleadings, and that the Commissioner had filed a cross-motion seeking judgment on the pleadings.

The Report and Recommendation recommended granting Roundtree’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The order does not explain the underlying Social Security dispute or the specific error requiring further proceedings.

Court’s Review

No objections to the Report and Recommendation were received. The court explained that when no objections are made, it may adopt the report if there is no clear error on the face of the record. After carefully reviewing the report, the court found no clear error and adopted it in its entirety.

Ruling

The court granted Roundtree’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. It remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The order resolved the two motions identified as Docket Entries 16 and 22 and requested that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.

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.