Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled July 14, 2022

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-00885
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Caproni granted remand, denied judgment for the Commissioner, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Sylvia Alvarez and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was sent back for further administrative proceedings.

What happened

In Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Sylvia Alvarez asked the court to send her case back for more administrative proceedings. The Commissioner of Social Security asked for judgment based on the existing pleadings.

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full, finding no clear error in Judge Jones’s analysis or conclusions. Because neither party objected after receiving adequate warning, the court stated that further appellate review was waived.

Judge Valerie Caproni’s court granted Alvarez’s motion to remand, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-00885
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
July 14, 2022

Background

Sylvia Alvarez sought judicial review of a Social Security matter and moved to remand the case for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner of Social Security moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ pleadings and the administrative record.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted the report and recommendation (R&R) in full. It stated that there was no clear error in Judge Jones’s analysis or conclusions. The opinion does not provide the underlying reasoning from the R&R beyond that statement.

The court also stated that the parties had received adequate warning about the consequences of failing to object to the R&R. Because neither party filed objections, the court held that further appellate review of the magistrate judge’s decision was precluded.

Disposition

The court granted Alvarez’s motion to remand the case for further administrative proceedings. It denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court accordingly stated that the case was closed.

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.