Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Nov. 9, 2022

Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:21-cv-03211
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gutierrez v. Kijakazi, Judge Oetken denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Gutierrez’s motion, and remanded the disability case.

Who this affects

Ricardo Gutierrez and the Social Security Administration’s Commissioner; the case returns to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

What happened

In Gutierrez v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Ricardo Gutierrez challenged the Social Security Administration’s final decision that he was not disabled and therefore was not entitled to Supplemental Security Income.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting Gutierrez’s cross-motion, and sending the case back for further administrative proceedings. Because no party timely objected, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge J. Paul Oetken adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Gutierrez’s cross-motion, remanded the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-03211
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Nov. 9, 2022

Background

Ricardo Gutierrez sued the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to challenge the agency’s final decision finding that he was not disabled for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security Income.

Report and Recommendation

On September 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended that the court deny the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant Gutierrez’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remand the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

Review and Ruling

Neither party timely objected to the recommendation. Under the applicable procedure, the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in full.

The court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Gutierrez’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 17 and 24 and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.