Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 19, 2024

William H. v. O'Malley

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-01737
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In William H. v. O’Malley, Judge Menendez granted William H.’s request, denied the Commissioner’s request, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Who this affects

William H. and the Social Security Administration are affected. The case returns to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings.

What happened

William H. challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying his applications for disability benefits in William H. v. O’Malley.

A magistrate judge recommended granting William H.’s request, denying the Commissioner’s request to affirm the administrative decision, and sending the matter back for further proceedings. The Commissioner did not object by the deadline.

Judge Katherine Menendez found no clear error, accepted the recommendation, granted William H.’s request, denied the Commissioner’s request, and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings.

The detailed version

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

Case
William H. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-01737
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Aug. 19, 2024

Background

William H. challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying his applications for disability benefits. The matter came before the district court on a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, issued July 29, 2024.

Review of the Recommendation

The magistrate judge recommended granting William H.’s request for relief, denying the Commissioner’s request to affirm the administrative decision, and remanding the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The Commissioner did not file objections by the August 12, 2024 deadline. When timely objections are not filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the decision or record.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Menendez found no error in the report and recommendation and ordered:

- The report and recommendation was accepted. - William H.’s request for relief was granted, as set out in the report and recommendation. - The Commissioner’s request for relief was denied. - The matter was remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation.

The opinion does not describe the specific error or reasoning that led to the recommended remand.

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.