Charlene M.Y. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-08976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Charlene M.Y. v. Commissioner, Judge Engelmayer granted M.Y.’s motion and remanded the Social Security case for further proceedings.
Charlene M.Y. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the agency for further administrative proceedings rather than ending with an award of benefits in this order.
What happened
In Charlene M.Y. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Charlene M.Y. asked the court to review the Commissioner’s decision denying her Supplemental Security Income. A magistrate judge recommended granting her motion for judgment on the pleadings and sending the case back for further administrative proceedings.
Neither M.Y. nor the Commissioner objected to that recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. The opinion does not describe the specific errors or issues addressed in the magistrate judge’s report.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the report in full, granted M.Y.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case.
The detailed version
- Charlene M.Y. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-08976
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Charlene M.Y. brought this action under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her Supplemental Security Income. The court had before it a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, which advised granting M.Y.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings.
Court’s review
Neither M.Y. nor the Commissioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Under the governing review standard, the district court needed only to determine whether the report contained clear error on the face of the record. The court stated that its review found no such error. The opinion does not set out the report’s underlying reasons for recommending remand.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted M.Y.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion listed at docket entry 18 and close the case. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of the report, as described in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.