Ruano v. Barnhart

Second Circuit

Ruano v. Barnhart

87 F. App'x 210

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 2004

DocketNo. 03-6077

StatusPublished

This text of 87 F. App'x 210 (Ruano v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruano v. Barnhart, 87 F. App'x 210 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Luz Ruano, pro se, appeals from an order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sand, J.), granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss Ruano’s action. Ruano sought to challenge the defendant’s determination that Ruano was not entitled to a reopening of her disability claims under the terms of the settlement in Stieberger v. Sullivan, 801 F.Supp. 1079 (S.D.N.Y.1992).

Substantially for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Ruano v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2003 WL 192170 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.27, 2003). Although Ruano applied for Supplemental Security Insurance benefits in 1985 and 1987, Ruano concedes that, in both instances, she did not press her case to the Administrative Law Judge or Appeals Counsel level. As such, under the terms of the settlement, she is not entitled to a reopening.

Ruano raises several additional arguments on appeal which we have considered, and find to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Luz Ruano, pro se, appeals from an order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sand, J.), granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss Ruano’s action. Ruano sought to challenge the defendant’s determination that Ruano was not entitled to a reopening of her disability claims under the terms of the settlement in Stieberger v. Sullivan, 801 F.Supp. 1079 (S.D.N.Y.1992).

Substantially for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Ruano v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2003 WL 192170 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.27, 2003). Although Ruano applied for Supplemental Security Insurance benefits in 1985 and 1987, Ruano concedes that, in both instances, she did not press her case to the Administrative Law Judge or Appeals Counsel level. As such, under the terms of the settlement, she is not entitled to a reopening.

Ruano raises several additional arguments on appeal which we have considered, and find to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. App'x 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruano-v-barnhart-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack