Hamberg v. O'Malley

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Hamberg v. O'Malley

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


William H.,                               No. 23-cv-1737 (KMM/LIB)       

         Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                                                                       
                                       AMENDED ORDER                     
Martin J. O’Malley,                                                      
Commissioner of Social Security Admin.,                                  

         Defendant.                                                      


    Plaintiff William H. brought this case to challenge the Defendant Commissioner of 
Social Security’s decision denying his applications for disability benefits. This matter is 
before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R) issued by 
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on July 29, 2024. Doc. 16. In the R&R, 
Judge  Brisbois  recommends  that  Plaintiff’s  request  for  relief  be  granted,  the 
Commissioner’s request for the Court to affirm the administrative decision be denied, and 
this matter be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. Defendant had 
until August 12, 2024 to file objections to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); D. Minn. LR 
72.2(b)(1). To date, Defendant has not objected.                          
    When a party fails to make timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 
recommendation, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s decision for clear error. 
Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996). Based on the Court’s review of the 
R&R and the record, the Court finds no error.                             
   Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT                               
1.  The Report and Recommendation, Doc. 16, is ACCEPTED;                
2.  Plaintiff’s request for relief, Doc. 13, is GRANTED, as set forth in the Report and 

   Recommendation;                                                      
3.  The Defendant’s request for relief, Doc. 14, is DENIED; and         
4.  This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, pursuant to 
   sentence  four  of  
42 U.S.C. § 405
(g),  for  further  administrative  proceedings 
   consistent with the Report and Recommendation.                       

   Let Judgment be entered accordingly.                                 

Date: August 21, 2024           s/Katherine Menendez                     
                               Katherine Menendez                       
                               United States District Judge             

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


William H.,                               No. 23-cv-1737 (KMM/LIB)       

         Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                                                                       
                                       AMENDED ORDER                     
Martin J. O’Malley,                                                      
Commissioner of Social Security Admin.,                                  

         Defendant.                                                      


    Plaintiff William H. brought this case to challenge the Defendant Commissioner of 
Social Security’s decision denying his applications for disability benefits. This matter is 
before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R) issued by 
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on July 29, 2024. Doc. 16. In the R&R, 
Judge  Brisbois  recommends  that  Plaintiff’s  request  for  relief  be  granted,  the 
Commissioner’s request for the Court to affirm the administrative decision be denied, and 
this matter be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. Defendant had 
until August 12, 2024 to file objections to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); D. Minn. LR 
72.2(b)(1). To date, Defendant has not objected.                          
    When a party fails to make timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 
recommendation, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s decision for clear error. 
Grinder v. Gammon, 
73 F.3d 793, 795
 (8th Cir. 1996). Based on the Court’s review of the 
R&R and the record, the Court finds no error.                             
   Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT                               
1.  The Report and Recommendation, Doc. 16, is ACCEPTED;                
2.  Plaintiff’s request for relief, Doc. 13, is GRANTED, as set forth in the Report and 

   Recommendation;                                                      
3.  The Defendant’s request for relief, Doc. 14, is DENIED; and         
4.  This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, pursuant to 
   sentence  four  of  
42 U.S.C. § 405
(g),  for  further  administrative  proceedings 
   consistent with the Report and Recommendation.                       

   Let Judgment be entered accordingly.                                 

Date: August 21, 2024           s/Katherine Menendez                     
                               Katherine Menendez                       
                               United States District Judge             

Reference

Status
Unknown