Elizabeth A. M. v. Saul
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-03073
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Elizabeth A. M. v. Saul, Judge Wright denied Saul’s summary-judgment motion, granted Elizabeth A. M.’s motion in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Elizabeth A. M. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
What happened
Elizabeth A. M. v. Saul concerned competing requests for summary judgment in a Social Security case. The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommended decision because neither side objected.
The court adopted the recommendation, denied Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment, and granted Elizabeth A. M.’s motion in part to the extent she sought further proceedings. The case was sent back to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered the order on February 17, 2021, and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Elizabeth A. M. v. Saul · No. 0:19-cv-03073
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Feb. 17, 2021
Background
The court considered a December 14, 2020 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. No objections were filed. Without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation.
The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute or explain the reasons for the recommended result.
Rulings
The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation. It denied Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide the case without a trial. It granted Elizabeth A. M.’s motion for summary judgment in part, specifically to the extent that she sought remand for further proceedings.
The court remanded, or sent back, the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.