Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 18, 2023

Susan E. v. Kijakazi

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:22-cv-01766
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecuritySummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Susan E. v. Kijakazi, Judge Menendez granted Susan E.’s summary-judgment motion, remanded the case, and denied the Commissioner’s motion.

Who this affects

Susan E. and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the case was sent back for further development.

What happened

In Susan E. v. Kijakazi, Susan E. asked the court to rule in her favor on her Social Security case. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the relief she sought.

A magistrate judge recommended a result, and neither side objected. The district court reviewed that recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez granted Susan E.’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further development under sentence four of the governing Social Security statute. The court denied the Acting Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Susan E. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:22-cv-01766
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Aug. 18, 2023

Background

The opinion concerns Susan E.’s Social Security case against Kilolo Kijakazi, identified in the caption as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion adopts a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. It does not provide the underlying facts, the administrative decision, or the specific legal issue presented.

Review of the Recommendation

No party filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of disputed portions. The court stated that its review of the recommendation and the record revealed no error, clear or otherwise.

Ruling

The court granted Susan E.’s motion for summary judgment. It remanded the case for further development under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court denied the Acting Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and 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.