Jones v. Kijakazi Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security.

S.D. Texas

Jones v. Kijakazi Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security.

DecidedApril 29, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-04053

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Kijakazi Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security. (Jones v. Kijakazi Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Kijakazi Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security., (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

April 30, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

JOHNNY R. JONES, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:23-cv-04053 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § LEE DUDEK, ACTING § COMMISSIONER OF § THE SOCIAL § SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Johnny R. Jones filed this action under the Social Security Act, 42 USC §§405(g), for review of the final decision by the Commissioner denying his request for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security benefits. Dkt 1. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan. Dkt 3. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Judge Bryan dated February 20, 2025. Dkt 14. She recommends that (i) the motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff be granted, Dkt 9, (ii) the motion for summary judgment by the Commissioner be denied, Dkt 10, and (iii) this case be remanded for further proceedings. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). No party filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and_ consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 14. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED. Signed on April 29, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

5 Z. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

April 30, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

JOHNNY R. JONES, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:23-cv-04053 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § LEE DUDEK, ACTING § COMMISSIONER OF § THE SOCIAL § SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Johnny R. Jones filed this action under the Social Security Act, 42 USC §§405(g), for review of the final decision by the Commissioner denying his request for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security benefits. Dkt 1. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan. Dkt 3. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Judge Bryan dated February 20, 2025. Dkt 14. She recommends that (i) the motion for summary judgment by Plaintiff be granted, Dkt 9, (ii) the motion for summary judgment by the Commissioner be denied, Dkt 10, and (iii) this case be remanded for further proceedings. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). No party filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and_ consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 14. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED. Signed on April 29, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

5 Z. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Kijakazi Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-kijakazi-do-not-docket-case-remanded-under-the-fourth-sentence-of-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack