Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled May 21, 2025

Channing B. v. Bisignano

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:24-cv-01359
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecurityEvidence
In one sentence

In Channing B. v. Dudek, Judge Menendez granted Channing B.’s request, denied the Commissioner’s request, and remanded the case for further development.

Who this affects

Channing B. and the Social Security Administration; the order sends the case back to the agency for further development of Channing B.’s mental and physical functioning.

What happened

In Channing B. v. Dudek, Channing B. challenged a Social Security decision. A magistrate judge found that the administrative law judge relied on personal inferences without evidence showing how Channing B.’s mental and physical impairments affected his ability to work.

The magistrate judge recommended sending the case back to the Social Security Administration to develop the record further. Neither side objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Katherine Menendez granted Channing B.’s request for relief, denied the Commissioner’s request for relief, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further development of Channing B.’s mental and physical functioning.

The detailed version

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

Case
Channing B. v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-01359
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
May 21, 2025

Background

Channing B. sought judicial review of a Social Security Administration decision. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge relied on inferences drawn from an administrative record that contained no evidence showing how Channing B.’s impairments affected his ability to work.

Report and Recommendation

The magistrate judge recommended a sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This type of remand sends the case back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The recommended purpose was to develop the record concerning Channing B.’s mental and physical functioning.

The deadline for objections was May 19, 2025, and no objections were filed. Without objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no error.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that:

  1. Channing B.’s request for relief was GRANTED.
  2. The Commissioner’s request for relief was DENIED.
  3. The case was REMANDED to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further development of Channing B.’s mental and physical functioning.

The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

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.