Kimberly Y. v. Bisignano
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01074
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Kimberly Y. v. Bisignano, Judge Tostrud upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits to the plaintiff.
Individuals who have been denied Social Security benefits and are challenging that denial in federal court, particularly those whose cases are decided on a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation without any party filing objections.
What happened
In Kimberly Y. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (No. 25-cv-1074), a federal district court in Minnesota reviewed a challenge to the Social Security Administration's decision to deny benefits to the plaintiff, Kimberly Y. The case came before the district court after a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 30, 2026, suggesting that the plaintiff's request for relief be denied and the Commissioner's request be granted.
Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation within the allowed time. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the Magistrate Judge's work only for clear, obvious errors — a less searching review than if objections had been raised. The court found no such clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Kimberly Y.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and affirmed the Social Security Administration's original denial of benefits. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Kimberly Y. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01074
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 17, 2026
Background
Kimberly Y. filed suit in the District of Minnesota challenging the Social Security Administration's denial of her benefits claim. Frank Bisignano is named as defendant in his official capacity as Commissioner of Social Security.
Magistrate Judge Proceedings
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 30, 2026 (ECF No. 25). The R&R recommended denying the plaintiff's request for relief (ECF No. 12) and granting the Commissioner's request for relief (ECF No. 21).
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no party objects to a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a deferential standard that requires an obvious mistake before the court will reject the recommendation. Neither party filed objections to the January 30, 2026 R&R.
Ruling
Finding no clear error in the R&R, Judge Tostrud:
- Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25).
- Denied the plaintiff's request for relief (ECF No. 12).
- Granted the Commissioner's request for relief (ECF No. 21).
- Affirmed the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits.
The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes on Scope
The order is brief and does not describe the underlying medical facts, the specific grounds for the original benefits denial, or the reasoning contained in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. The merits of the Social Security benefits determination were addressed in the R&R, which the district court adopted without independent analysis beyond the clear-error check.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.