Tashman v. Saul
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tashman v. Kijakazi, Judge Furman denied Tashman’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, denied appeal fee status, and closed the case.
Tashman and the Commissioner; the judgment denied Tashman’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and closed the case.
What happened
In Tashman v. Kijakazi, the court adopted the recommended ruling in full. The opinion excerpt does not explain the underlying Social Security dispute or the reasons for that recommendation.
The court denied Tashman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. It also determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Tashman could not proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
Judge Jesse Furman’s court closed the case after entering those rulings. The judgment is dated August 11, 2022.
The detailed version
- Tashman v. Saul · No. 1:21-cv-00801
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 11, 2022
Background
The judgment states that the court’s August 8, 2022 order gave the reasons for the decision. The excerpt provided here does not describe the underlying claim, the recommended ruling’s reasoning, or the parties’ factual positions.
Rulings
The court adopted the recommended ruling in its entirety. It denied Tashman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which sought judgment based on the existing pleadings, and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Because the excerpt does not identify the precise relief sought in the cross-motion, it is described here only by the court’s stated disposition.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The case was closed.
Effect
The judgment resolves the case in favor of the Commissioner’s cross-motion and against Tashman’s motion. The excerpt does not state whether any separate appeal was filed or describe the underlying Social Security determination.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.