Velez v. Saul
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-05795
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velez v. Saul, Judge Nathan adopted the recommendation, denied Velez’s motion, granted Saul’s motion, and closed the case.
Raymond Velez and Andrew Saul, the parties to the case.
What happened
In Velez v. Saul, Raymond Velez asked the court to rule in his favor based on the existing court filings. Andrew Saul filed a cross-motion seeking the opposite result. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute in detail.
Judge Netburn recommended denying Velez’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Because neither side objected by the deadline, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake in the record—and found none.
Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted the recommendation in full, denied Velez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Saul’s motion, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Velez v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-05795
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
Raymond Velez was the plaintiff, and Andrew Saul was the defendant. The order concerns Velez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The opinion does not explain the underlying Social Security claim or the specific arguments made in those motions.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation on January 11, 2022. It recommended denying Velez’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The parties’ objections were due January 25, 2022, but no objections had been filed by the date of the order.
When no timely objection is made, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s 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 firmly convinced that a mistake was made. Judge Nathan found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted Judge Netburn’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It denied Velez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Defendant’s motion. The court directed the clerk to close the case.
Result
The order resolves the motions in favor of the defendant, but the opinion provided here does not state the underlying benefits determination or explain the substantive reasons supporting the motions’ disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.