Eugene F. v. King
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-00329
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Eugene F. v. King, Judge Blackwell accepted a report, granted remand, denied affirmance, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Eugene F. and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
What happened
Eugene F. v. King concerns Eugene F.'s request to remand the Acting Commissioner's decision. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute in detail.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report and recommendation on January 22, 2025. No timely objections were filed, and the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error but found none.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation, granted Eugene F.'s request to remand, denied the defendant's request to affirm the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
The detailed version
- Eugene F. v. King · No. 0:24-cv-00329
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
Eugene F. asked the court to remand the Acting Commissioner's decision. The defendant asked the court to affirm that decision. The opinion does not provide the underlying facts or explain the specific issue addressed in the administrative proceedings.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation on January 22, 2025. No objections were filed within the permitted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted Eugene F.'s request to remand the Commissioner's decision, denied the defendant's request to affirm the decision, and remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The court also directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.