Don J.R. v. O'Malley
- Dulce Foster
- 0:23-cv-03221
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Don J.R. v. O’Malley, Judge Foster remanded the Social Security case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of federal law.
Don J.R. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security Administration for further administrative action.
What happened
Don J.R. v. O’Malley involved the parties’ joint request to send the case back for more proceedings regarding an Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
The parties agreed that remand was necessary and asked the court to reverse and remand the decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The order does not describe the specific issue with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that the case be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative action and directed that judgment be entered. The order does not state what result the further proceedings must reach.
The detailed version
- Don J.R. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-03221
- Dulce J. Foster
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
The matter concerned Don J.R.’s case against Martin J. O’Malley, identified in the caption as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The court considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Remand.
The parties’ request
The parties agreed that remand was necessary for further proceedings. They asked the court to reverse and remand the Administrative Law Judge’s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand is a court order sending a Social Security case back to the Commissioner for further administrative action under that statute.
Ruling
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that the case be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative action. The court also ordered that judgment be entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The opinion does not identify the specific error or issue requiring remand and does not state the outcome required on remand.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.