Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 27, 2023

Ker N. v. Kijakazi

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:21-cv-02222
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecuritySummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Ker N. v. Kijakazi, Judge Menendez denied Ker N.’s summary-judgment motion, granted the Commissioner’s, and affirmed the decision.

Who this affects

Ker N. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the court’s order affirmed the Commissioner’s decision in this case.

What happened

In Ker N. v. Kijakazi, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation that Ker N.’s motion for summary judgment be denied and the Commissioner’s motion be granted.

No objections were filed. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied Ker N.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ker N. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:21-cv-02222
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Feb. 27, 2023

Background

The matter came before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation, dated January 4, 2023. The recommendation was that Ker N.’s motion for summary judgment be denied and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be granted.

Court’s Review

No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a de novo review of specific disputed portions. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Ker N.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security issue or explain the reasoning in the administrative decision.

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.