Zoya v. Kijakazi
Zoya v. Kijakazi
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michele Z., Case No. 21-cv-661 (KMM/TNL) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Kilolo Kijakazi, Defendant.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, dated July 28, 2022. No objections have been filed to that R&R. 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, 563 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 28, is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
3. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
4. The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as “cashier II” is VACATED as to step four.
5. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the findings and conclusions of the Report and Recommendation.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.
Date: September 26, 2022 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michele Z., Case No. 21-cv-661 (KMM/TNL) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Kilolo Kijakazi, Defendant.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, dated July 28, 2022. No objections have been filed to that R&R. 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, 563 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 28, is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
3. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
4. The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as “cashier II” is VACATED as to step four.
5. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the findings and conclusions of the Report and Recommendation.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.
Date: September 26, 2022 s/ Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.