Tavarez Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-07420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tavarez Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Furman adopted the recommendation and closed the case after noting the parties’ appellate-review waiver.
Tavarez Guzman and the Commissioner of Social Security were affected by the court’s adoption of the report and recommendation and closure of the case. The judgment also states that both parties waived objections and appellate review.
What happened
Tavarez Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security involved a petition and a report and recommendation, but this judgment does not explain the underlying Social Security dispute or the recommendation’s proposed result. The parties waived their rights to object to the report and recommendation and to seek appellate review.
Even without objections, the court reviewed the petition and report and recommendation. It found the report well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, then adopted it in its entirety.
Judge Furman’s court ordered that the report and recommendation be adopted and stated that the case was closed. The judgment does not state whether the underlying Social Security decision was affirmed or sent back for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Tavarez Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-07420
- Jesse Furman
- June 28, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns a petition by Tavarez Guzman against the Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion text does not describe the underlying Social Security claim, the agency’s decision, or the specific recommendation made in the report and recommendation.
Parties’ Waiver
The judgment states that the parties waived their right to object to the report and recommendation and to obtain appellate review. It cites Frank v. Johnson and Caidor v. Onondaga County in support of that statement.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Despite the waiver, the court reviewed the petition and the report and recommendation without objections. It found the report and recommendation well reasoned and grounded in fact and law, adopted it in its entirety, and stated that the case was closed.
The judgment does not identify whether the report and recommendation affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, ordered a remand, or reached another result. Accordingly, the underlying disposition cannot be stated from this judgment alone.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.