UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Nathan L.,1                                            Civ. No. 23-1310 (JWB/DJF) 

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                                                        
                                   ORDER ACCEPTING                   
Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of  REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION            
Social Security Administration,       OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE                 

          Defendant.                                                 


Clifford Michael Farrell, Esq., Manring & Farrell; and Edward C. Olson, Esq., Reitan 
Law Office, counsel for Plaintiff.                                        

Ana H. Voss, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office; James D. Sides, Esq., and Linda H. 
Green, Esq., Social Security Administration, counsel for Defendant.       


United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and   
Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 25.) No objections have been 
filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed 
for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 

 (8th Cir. 
1996). Having reviewed the R&R, no clear error is found.                  
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and 
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                      
1.   The May 3, 2024 R&R (Doc. No. 25) is ACCEPTED;                  

1    This District has adopted the policy of using only the first name and last initial of 
any nongovernmental parties in social security appeals such as the present case. 
Accordingly, only Plaintiff’s first name and last initial are provided.   
2.   Plaintiff’s request for relief (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART; 
3.   Defendant’s request for relief (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED;         

4.   The Commissioner’s final decision is vacated;                   
5.   This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four  
of 

(g), for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R. 
As stated in the R&R, “[o]n remand the ALJ should: (1) provide a clear explanation as to 
why Plaintiff’s RFC should or should not be further limited to brief and superficial 
interaction; and (2) recall a vocational expert for testimony to the extent necessary to 

address a new hypothetical based on any modified RFC.” (Doc. No. 25 at 12–13); and 
6.   This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.                        
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

Date: June 14, 2024                     s/ Jerry W. Blackwell             
                                   JERRY W. BLACKWELL                
                                   United States District Judge      

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Nathan L.,1                                            Civ. No. 23-1310 (JWB/DJF) 

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                                                        
                                   ORDER ACCEPTING                   
Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of  REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION            
Social Security Administration,       OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE                 

          Defendant.                                                 


Clifford Michael Farrell, Esq., Manring & Farrell; and Edward C. Olson, Esq., Reitan 
Law Office, counsel for Plaintiff.                                        

Ana H. Voss, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office; James D. Sides, Esq., and Linda H. 
Green, Esq., Social Security Administration, counsel for Defendant.       


United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and   
Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 25.) No objections have been 
filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed 
for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 

 (8th Cir. 
1996). Having reviewed the R&R, no clear error is found.                  
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and 
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                      
1.   The May 3, 2024 R&R (Doc. No. 25) is ACCEPTED;                  

1    This District has adopted the policy of using only the first name and last initial of 
any nongovernmental parties in social security appeals such as the present case. 
Accordingly, only Plaintiff’s first name and last initial are provided.   
2.   Plaintiff’s request for relief (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART; 
3.   Defendant’s request for relief (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED;         

4.   The Commissioner’s final decision is vacated;                   
5.   This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four  
of 

(g), for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R. 
As stated in the R&R, “[o]n remand the ALJ should: (1) provide a clear explanation as to 
why Plaintiff’s RFC should or should not be further limited to brief and superficial 
interaction; and (2) recall a vocational expert for testimony to the extent necessary to 

address a new hypothetical based on any modified RFC.” (Doc. No. 25 at 12–13); and 
6.   This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.                        
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

Date: June 14, 2024                     s/ Jerry W. Blackwell             
                                   JERRY W. BLACKWELL                
                                   United States District Judge