U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2024

Yang v. O'Malley

Yang v. O'Malley
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · Decided January 17, 2024

Yang v. O'Malley

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Hue Y., File No. 23-cv-209 (ECT/DJF) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on December 29, 2023. ECF No. 20. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, and based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED IN PART;1 and 2. Plaintiff’s Request for Relief [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 3. The Commissioner’s Request for Relief [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and The Report and Recommendation’s recommendation to reverse the Commissioner’s Decision is rejected in light of the case’s disposition.

4. The matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: January 17, 2024 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Hue Y., File No. 23-cv-209 (ECT/DJF) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on December 29, 2023. ECF No. 20. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, and based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED IN PART;1 and 2. Plaintiff’s Request for Relief [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 3. The Commissioner’s Request for Relief [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and The Report and Recommendation’s recommendation to reverse the Commissioner’s Decision is rejected in light of the case’s disposition.

4. The matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: January 17, 2024 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.