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

Boland v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-07312
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Boland v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos denied Boland’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and dismissed the case.

Who this affects

Daniel M. Boland’s Social Security case was dismissed after the court denied his motion and granted the Commissioner of Social Security’s cross-motion.

What happened

In Boland v. Commissioner of Social Security, Daniel M. Boland asked the court for judgment on the pleadings, while the Commissioner of Social Security filed a cross-motion. The judgment does not describe the underlying disability-related issues or the parties’ arguments.

The court adopted Judge Moses’ Report in full. It denied Boland’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and dismissed the case.

Judge Ramos’s judgment also stated that the parties’ failure to file written objections precluded appellate review of the decision. The case was closed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Boland v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-07312
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 31, 2022

Background

The judgment identifies Daniel M. Boland as the plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security as the defendant. Boland filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion. The judgment refers to an Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2022, but the provided text does not explain the underlying Social Security dispute or the reasoning on the legal issues.

Ruling

The court adopted Judge Moses’ Report in full. It denied Boland’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The case was dismissed.

The judgment further stated that the parties’ failure to file written objections precluded appellate review of the decision. The case was therefore closed. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

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.