Desiderio v. Bisignano
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-02981
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Desiderio v. Bisignano, Judge Provinzino upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits to plaintiff Jessica D.
Individuals who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and are appealing a denial in federal court, particularly those whose cases proceed through a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without either party filing objections.
What happened
In Desiderio v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-2981), plaintiff Jessica D. sued Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, after the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her application for disability insurance benefits. She asked the federal court to set aside that denial and send the case back to the SSA for further review.
A magistrate judge — a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists district court judges — issued a detailed Report and Recommendation on July 30, 2025, recommending that Jessica D.'s requests be denied and the Commissioner's decision be upheld. Neither side filed objections to that recommendation within the required time, so the district court reviewed it only for clear error, meaning obvious mistakes.
Finding no clear error in the Report and Recommendation, Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted it in full on September 3, 2025. The court denied Jessica D.'s request to vacate the SSA's decision and remand the case, granted the Commissioner's request to have his decision affirmed, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice — meaning Jessica D. cannot refile this same lawsuit in federal court.
The detailed version
- Desiderio v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-02981
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Jessica D. brought this action against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, challenging the SSA's final decision denying her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. She asked the district court to vacate (set aside) the Commissioner's decision and remand (send back) the matter to the SSA for further administrative proceedings.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 30, 2025, recommending that the court deny Jessica D.'s requests and affirm the Commissioner's decision. Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time period specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, the district court applied a "clear error" standard of review — a deferential standard under which the court will reject the magistrate judge's recommendation only if it contains an obvious error. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), as authority for that standard.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court issued four specific orders:
- The R&R (ECF No. 16) is adopted.
- Plaintiff's request to vacate the Commissioner's decision and remand the case to the SSA (ECF No. 13) is denied.
- The Commissioner's request that his decision be affirmed (ECF No. 15) is granted.
- Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice, barring refiling of this lawsuit in federal court.
Notes
The order is brief and administrative in nature, as it adopts a magistrate judge's recommendation without independent merits analysis by the district court. The underlying legal analysis is contained in Magistrate Judge Wright's R&R (ECF No. 16), which is not reproduced in this order. The substantive reasoning for upholding the SSA's denial of benefits is therefore found in the R&R rather than in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.