Ramos v. Saul
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-10616
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ramos v. Saul, Judge Torres amended an earlier order, granted Ramos’s remand motion, and denied the parties’ cross-motions as moot.
Madeline Ramos and the Commissioner of Social Security; the matter was remanded to the Commissioner, with the federal court retaining jurisdiction.
What happened
Madeline Ramos v. Andrew Saul concerned Ramos’s request to send her Social Security matter back to the Commissioner. The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, to which no party objected.
The amended order adopted the report and recommendation in full, granted Ramos’s motion to remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and denied the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings as moot, without prejudice to renewal. The court kept jurisdiction, vacated an earlier judgment, and closed the case while allowing the parties to seek reopening after the Commissioner’s final decision.
Judge Analisa Torres issued the April 30, 2021 order. The order also states at the outset that Ramos’s motion was denied and the Commissioner’s motion was granted, but it then amends the earlier order to provide the different dispositions described above.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Saul · No. 1:19-cv-10616
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions at ECF Nos. 47–49 and 53. It also considered the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox at ECF No. 44. Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Ruling
The court amended its prior order at ECF No. 45 and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The amended order granted Ramos’s motion to remand the matter to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-six remand sends the matter back to the Commissioner while the federal court retains jurisdiction.
The parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings were denied as moot, without prejudice to renewal. The court stated that Ramos could petition for an order reinstating the case for judicial review of the Commissioner’s new decision. The Clerk was directed to vacate the judgment at ECF No. 46, terminate specified motions, and close the case. The parties could request that the case be reopened within 30 days after the Commissioner’s final decision.
Additional Disposition and Ambiguity
The order begins by stating, “Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED.” It then says that ECF No. 45 is amended and sets out the operative language granting Ramos’s remand motion and denying the cross-motions as moot. The opinion does not explain the apparent difference between the opening statement and the amended order.
Judge
Judge Analisa Torres signed the order on April 30, 2021.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.