Joseph v. Saul
Joseph v. Saul
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Allen J., File No. 18-cv-0810 (ECT/SER) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security,1 Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner Allen J. brought this action seeking Social Security disability benefits.
Compl. [ECF No. 1]. The Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 17, 20. The case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 23] issued by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. Magistrate Judge Rau recommends denying Allen J.’s motion and granting the motion brought by the Commissioner of Social Security, Andrew Saul. R&R at 13. Allen J. filed objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25], to which the Commissioner has responded [ECF No. 26]. Because Allen J. has objected, the Court is required to review de novo “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with the R&R’s analysis and conclusions regarding the arguments Commissioner of Social Security Andrew Saul is substituted for former Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy Berryhill because a “[public] officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party” and “[l]ater proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). squarely presented by the Parties in their summary-judgment briefs; accordingly, it will accept Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R. To the extent Allen J.’s objections raised new arguments not already raised before Magistrate Judge Rau, those arguments are waived, and they will not be considered here. See Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that “[t]he district court properly refused to consider [appellant’s] argument . . . because th[e] argument was not presented first to the magistrate judge”).
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] is ACCEPTED in full; 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 17] is DENIED; 4. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED; and 5. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 16, 2019 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Allen J., File No. 18-cv-0810 (ECT/SER) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security,1 Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner Allen J. brought this action seeking Social Security disability benefits.
Compl. [ECF No. 1]. The Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 17, 20. The case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 23] issued by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. Magistrate Judge Rau recommends denying Allen J.’s motion and granting the motion brought by the Commissioner of Social Security, Andrew Saul. R&R at 13. Allen J. filed objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25], to which the Commissioner has responded [ECF No. 26]. Because Allen J. has objected, the Court is required to review de novo “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with the R&R’s analysis and conclusions regarding the arguments Commissioner of Social Security Andrew Saul is substituted for former Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy Berryhill because a “[public] officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party” and “[l]ater proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). squarely presented by the Parties in their summary-judgment briefs; accordingly, it will accept Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R. To the extent Allen J.’s objections raised new arguments not already raised before Magistrate Judge Rau, those arguments are waived, and they will not be considered here. See Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that “[t]he district court properly refused to consider [appellant’s] argument . . . because th[e] argument was not presented first to the magistrate judge”).
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] is ACCEPTED in full; 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 17] is DENIED; 4. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED; and 5. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 16, 2019 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.