Gerald L. v. Kijakazi
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:20-cv-01352
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gerald L. v. Kijakazi, Judge Menendez adopted the recommendation, partly granted both summary-judgment motions, vacated steps four and five, and remanded.
Gerald L. and the Commissioner; the matter returns to the Commissioner for further proceedings concerning the administrative law judge’s determination and decision at steps four and five.
What happened
Gerald L. v. Kijakazi came before the district court on a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. No party filed objections, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It granted in part and denied in part Gerald L.’s motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Judge Menendez vacated the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity determination and decision as to steps four and five, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The detailed version
- Gerald L. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01352
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
The court considered the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on July 27, 2022. The opinion states that no objections were filed. The underlying report and recommendation’s detailed findings and conclusions are not included in the provided opinion text.
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court stated that, after reviewing the report and recommendation and the record, it found no error, clear or otherwise.
Rulings
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It granted in part and denied in part Gerald L.’s motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
The court vacated the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity determination and decision as to steps four and five. It remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation’s findings and conclusions. The opinion does not state the specific underlying reasons for the rulings beyond referring to that report and recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.