Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled June 7, 2022

McLean v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:21-cv-02123
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

McLean v. Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Engelmayer remanded McLean’s benefits case after granting her motion and denying the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Who this affects

Stephanie McLean and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the agency for further administrative proceedings concerning McLean’s Supplemental Security Income claim.

What happened

Stephanie McLean asked the federal court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her Supplemental Security Income. A magistrate judge recommended granting McLean’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Neither McLean nor the Commissioner objected to that recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full, granted McLean’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The court also stated that the lack of objections waived appellate review.

The detailed version

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

Case
McLean v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-02123
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
June 7, 2022

Background

Stephanie McLean brought this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her Supplemental Security Income. The court had before it McLean’s and the Commissioner’s competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and the applicable law.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones recommended granting McLean’s motion. Neither McLean nor the Commissioner submitted objections. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no facial error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Ruling

The court granted McLean’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket entries 20 and 22 and close the case. The opinion also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.