Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 31, 2022

Fernandez Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:20-cv-07897
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Fernandez Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Nathan adopted the recommendation and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Who this affects

Johanna Fernandez Pena and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was closed after the court granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

What happened

In Fernandez Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation that it grant the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute.

The parties’ objections to the recommendation were due January 12, 2022, but no objections had been filed by January 31. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record, and found none.

Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted the recommendation in full and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fernandez Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-07897
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Jan. 31, 2022

Background

Johanna Fernandez Pena brought this case against the Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion addresses a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), but it does not explain the underlying claims or the parties’ substantive arguments.

Report and Recommendation

Judge Cave issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant the Commissioner’s motion. The parties’ objections were due by January 12, 2022. No objections had been filed as of January 31, 2022.

When there are no objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court explained that clear error exists only when review of the entire record leaves the court with a firm conviction that a mistake was made.

Ruling

Judge Alison J. Nathan found no clear error, adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for the reasons stated in that recommendation. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion itself does not state the recommendation’s underlying reasoning or describe the disposition of any particular Social Security claim.

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.