Opinion
Civ. 23-1310 (JWB/DJF)
06-14-2024
Nathan L.,[1]Plaintiff, v. Martin J. O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Clifford Michael Farrell, Esq., Manring & Farrell; and Edward C. Olson, Esq., Reitan Law Office, counsel for Plaintiff. Ana H. Voss, Esq., United States Attorney's Office; James D. Sides, Esq., and Linda H. Green, Esq., Social Security Administration, counsel for Defendant.
Clifford Michael Farrell, Esq., Manring & Farrell; and Edward C. Olson, Esq., Reitan Law Office, counsel for Plaintiff.
Ana H. Voss, Esq., United States Attorney's Office; James D. Sides, Esq., and Linda H. Green, Esq., Social Security Administration, counsel for Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JERRY W. BLACKWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 25.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the R&R, no clear error is found.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The May 3, 2024 R&R (Doc. No. 25) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff's request for relief (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART;
3. Defendant's request for relief (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner's final decision is vacated;
5. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R. As stated in the R&R, “[o]n remand the ALJ should: (1) provide a clear explanation as to why Plaintiff's RFC should or should not be further limited to brief and superficial interaction; and (2) recall a vocational expert for testimony to the extent necessary to address a new hypothetical based on any modified RFC.” (Doc. No. 25 at 12-13); and
6. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.