Hirman v. Kijakazi
Hirman v. Kijakazi
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jason H., No. 21-cv-174 (KMM/ECW) Plaintiff, ORDER v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, dated May 19, 2022. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] be denied, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] be granted. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period permitted.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 536 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court’s careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The R&R [ECF No. 25] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] is DENIED; 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED; and 4. This case is DISMSISED WITH PREJUDICE.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.
Date: June 22, 2022 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jason H., No. 21-cv-174 (KMM/ECW) Plaintiff, ORDER v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, dated May 19, 2022. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] be denied, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] be granted. No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time period permitted.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 536 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on the Court’s careful review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The R&R [ECF No. 25] is ACCEPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] is DENIED; 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED; and 4. This case is DISMSISED WITH PREJUDICE.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.
Date: June 22, 2022 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.