Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 29, 2021

Ramos v. Saul

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:19-cv-10616
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ramos v. Saul, Judge Torres granted remand to the Social Security Commissioner and denied the parties’ cross-motions as moot.

Who this affects

Madeline Ramos and Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security; the matter was remanded to the Commissioner.

What happened

In Ramos v. Saul, the court considered a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. No party objected to that recommendation.

The court found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and granted Madeline Ramos’s motion to remand. It sent the matter back to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), denied the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings as moot, and closed the case.

Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on March 29, 2021. The opinion does not explain the underlying reason for the recommended remand.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramos v. Saul · No. 1:19-cv-10616
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Mar. 29, 2021

Background

The court received a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. The opinion states that the parties filed no objections.

Court’s Review

Because there were no objections, Judge Torres reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and found none. The court then adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Rulings

The court granted Madeline Ramos’s motion to remand and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court denied as moot the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed motions and close the case.

The opinion does not provide the underlying reasoning for the recommended 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.