Paula A. v. O'Malley
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-02358
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Paula A. v. O’Malley, Judge Menendez reversed the benefits denial, remanded for further proceedings, and denied Paula A.’s motion in all other respects.
Paula A. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the denial of benefits was reversed, and the matter was returned to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
What happened
Paula A. v. O’Malley concerns the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits to Paula A. The order does not explain the underlying benefits dispute.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation because no one filed objections. Without objections, it looked for clear error and found none, so it adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Menendez reversed the denial of benefits and sent the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The court denied Paula A.’s motion for summary judgment in all other respects.
The detailed version
- Paula A. v. O'Malley · No. 0:22-cv-02358
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
The case concerns the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits to Paula A. The opinion does not describe the benefits claim, the administrative proceedings, or the reasons for the denial.
Report and Recommendation
The order addressed a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on October 11, 2023. No objections were filed within the permitted time. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.
Ruling
The court reversed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits and remanded the matter under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The court also denied Paula A.’s motion for summary judgment in all other respects. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Scope of the Opinion
The order does not state the specific legal or factual error underlying the reversal and remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.