Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 11, 2024

Fitzgerald v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-07507
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fitzgerald v. Commissioner, Judge Broderick adopted a recommendation dismissing Fitzgerald’s Social Security case without prejudice for failing to prosecute.

Who this affects

Shawn Love Fitzgerald, Jr.’s Social Security review action was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed; the order did not decide whether the Commissioner correctly denied benefits.

What happened

In Fitzgerald v. Commissioner of Social Security, Shawn Love Fitzgerald, Jr. sought review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. The Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, but Fitzgerald did not oppose it or request more time.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered Fitzgerald to explain his failure to respond and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not comply. She recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and neither party objected.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick found no clear error, adopted Judge Cave’s recommendation in its entirety, directed the Clerk to terminate open motions, and closed the case. The order did not decide whether the denial of benefits was correct.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fitzgerald v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-07507
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 11, 2024

Background

Shawn Love Fitzgerald, Jr. brought this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits.

The Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 19, 2022. Fitzgerald did not file opposition papers and did not ask for additional time. On December 2, 2022, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered Fitzgerald to explain his failure to respond and to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Report and Recommendation

On January 3, 2023, Judge Cave issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Neither party filed objections.

When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Broderick reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Broderick adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Fitzgerald’s last known address, terminate any open motions, and close the case. The order dismissed the action without prejudice and did not reach the merits of whether the Commissioner correctly denied Fitzgerald’s benefits applications.

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.