Castillo Bonilla v. Commissioner of Social Security
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-08216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Castillo Bonilla v. Commissioner, Judge Oetken affirmed the denial of supplemental security income after adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Humberto Castillo Bonilla, who sought supplemental security income benefits, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision finding Castillo Bonilla ineligible for those benefits.
What happened
In Castillo Bonilla v. Commissioner of Social Security, Humberto Castillo Bonilla asked the court to review an administrative law judge’s decision finding him ineligible for supplemental security income benefits. He moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule in his favor based on the existing record.
The Commissioner opposed that motion and filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended denying Castillo Bonilla’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion, concluding that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical evidence and that the credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. Neither party objected to the recommendation.
Judge Oetken reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. He denied Castillo Bonilla’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision, entered judgment accordingly, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Castillo Bonilla v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-08216
- James Oetken
- June 17, 2022
Background
Humberto Castillo Bonilla sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s determination that he was ineligible for supplemental security income benefits. Castillo Bonilla moved for judgment on the pleadings on September 6, 2021. The Commissioner of Social Security filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 6, 2021.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended that Castillo Bonilla’s motion be denied and that the Commissioner’s cross-motion be granted. The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge gave proper weight to the medical evidence and that the overall credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.
The parties were given 14 days to file objections. Neither party objected. Because no timely objections were filed, the District Court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken found no clear error in Judge Willis’s thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and adopted it in full. The court denied Castillo Bonilla’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment, close the two motions, and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.