Wilson v. Kijakazi
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01733
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Wilson v. Kijakazi, Judge Tunheim overruled Wilson’s objection, adopted the recommendation, and granted the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion without considering her new appointment argument.
Elizabeth Annette Wilson’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
What happened
In Wilson v. Kijakazi, Elizabeth Annette Wilson asked the court to review the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. A magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s request for summary judgment.
Wilson objected by raising a new argument that the administrative law judge was not properly appointed and therefore lacked authority to decide her claim. She had not raised that argument before the magistrate judge, and she did not challenge the recommendation’s other conclusions.
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Wilson’s objection because new arguments generally cannot be raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. He adopted the recommendation and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court did not decide Wilson’s appointment argument in this order.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01733
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 10, 2022
Background
Elizabeth Annette Wilson sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her request for disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The administrative law judge denied the request in June 2019, and the Social Security Appeals Council denied Wilson’s appeal.
Wilson and the Commissioner filed cross-motions for summary judgment. A magistrate judge issued a January 21, 2022 report and recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted. Wilson objected, but she did not challenge the magistrate judge’s reasoning on the summary-judgment motions. Instead, she raised a new argument that the administrative law judge had not been constitutionally appointed and therefore lacked authority to decide her claim.
Analysis
The court explained that objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must identify specific challenged findings or recommendations. Under Eighth Circuit precedent cited by the court, a party generally cannot raise an argument for the first time in an objection to the report and recommendation.
Because Wilson had not presented the appointment argument to the magistrate judge, the court declined to consider it. The court rejected Wilson’s reliance on a “manifest injustice” exception, explaining that the case she cited concerned whether an argument was preserved for appellate review, not whether it could first be raised in a district-court objection.
The court also rejected Wilson’s attorneys’ explanation that they had not learned of the appointment issue until after a January 2022 ruling in a prior related proceeding. The court stated that the issue could have been identified and raised before the magistrate judge. The court noted that Wilson could seek review of the argument through a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, but Rule 60 did not permit the court to consider the argument at this stage.
Disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Wilson’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s January 21, 2022 report and recommendation, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. This order did not decide whether the administrative law judge’s appointment was constitutional.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.