Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled July 23, 2024

Ali J. v. O'Malley

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-00910
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ali J. v. O’Malley, Judge Menendez affirmed the denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Who this affects

Ali J., whose applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income were denied, and the Commissioner of Social Security.

What happened

Ali J. asked the District of Minnesota to review the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. A magistrate judge recommended denying Ali J.’s request and affirming the benefits decision.

Ali J. did not object to that recommendation by the deadline or afterward. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and examined the record.

Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied Ali J.’s request for relief, granted the Commissioner’s request, and affirmed the benefits decision. The court also dismissed Ali J.’s complaint with prejudice, meaning the complaint cannot be refiled.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ali J. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-00910
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
July 23, 2024

Background

Ali J. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Ali J.’s request for relief be denied, that the Commissioner’s request for relief be granted, and that the decision denying benefits be affirmed.

Review of the Recommendation

Ali J. did not file objections by the May 16, 2024 deadline, and the opinion states that he had not filed objections afterward. Because no timely objections were filed, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court concluded that Judge Foster did not err in finding that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision denying the applications.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that the Report and Recommendation be accepted; Ali J.’s request for relief be denied; the Commissioner’s request for relief be granted; and the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The court also dismissed Ali J.’s complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.