Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 12, 2024

Chirstopher L. W. v. O'Malley

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-01978
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Chirstopher L. W. v. O’Malley, Judge Menendez affirmed the benefits denial, denied reversal or remand, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Who this affects

Chirstopher L. W.; the Commissioner of Social Security

What happened

Chirstopher L. W. v. O’Malley challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of Chirstopher L. W.’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income.

A magistrate judge recommended denying Chirstopher L. W.’s request to reverse or send back the Commissioner’s decision, granting the Commissioner’s request to affirm, and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Chirstopher L. W. did not object by the deadline, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied the request for reversal or remand, granted the Commissioner’s request to affirm, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chirstopher L. W. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-01978
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Aug. 12, 2024

Background

Chirstopher L. W. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. The matter came before the district court for review of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation issued on May 31, 2024.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the court deny Chirstopher L. W.’s request to reverse or remand the Commissioner’s decision, grant the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision, and dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Chirstopher L. W. had until June 14, 2024, to object but did not do so.

Court’s Review

Because no timely objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no error.

Ruling

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Chirstopher L. W.’s request for reversal or remand, granted the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court 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.