ORDING v. ASTRUE, 11-2296 (MJD/LIB). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20120905b13
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated August 6, 2012. Both parties have objected to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which specific written objections have been made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated August 6, 2012. Both parties have objected to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which specific written objections have been made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon ..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated August 6, 2012. Both parties have objected to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which specific written objections have been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brisbois dated August 6, 2012.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated August 6, 2012 [Docket No. 17].
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 14] is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED in part as more fully described in the Report and Recommendation dated August 6, 2012.
4. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation dated August 6, 2012, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Source: Leagle
