De La Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District De La Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security

De La Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Heidi De La Cruz
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	1:2016cv03954
Filed:	May 26, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Bronx
Presiding Judge:	Henry B. Pitman
Presiding Judge:	Analisa Torres
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 23, 2017	Filing 16 ORDER for 15 Report and Recommendations, 13 Motion to Remand to Agency filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Having received no objection to Magistrate Judge Pitman's May 3, 2017 report and recommendation, ECF No. 15, the Court has reviewed the recommendation and found "no clear error on the face of the record." Santana v. United States, 476 F. Supp. 2d 300, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The Court, therefor e, accepts and adopts the thorough and well-reasoned report, which recommends that the Commissioner of Social Security's motion to remand, ECF No. 13, be granted. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for fur ther proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(g) and 42 U.S.C § 1383(c)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 13 and close the case. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/23/2017) (cf)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 23, 2017

Filing 16 ORDER for 15 Report and Recommendations, 13 Motion to Remand to Agency filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Having received no objection to Magistrate Judge Pitman's May 3, 2017 report and recommendation, ECF No. 15, the Court has reviewed the recommendation and found "no clear error on the face of the record." Santana v. United States, 476 F. Supp. 2d 300, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The Court, therefor e, accepts and adopts the thorough and well-reasoned report, which recommends that the Commissioner of Social Security's motion to remand, ECF No. 13, be granted. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for fur ther proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(g) and 42 U.S.C § 1383(c)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 13 and close the case. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/23/2017) (cf)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: De La Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Heidi De La Cruz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By:	Heetano Shamsoondar
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?