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 affirmed the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits to plaintiff Kimberly Y.
Individuals who have been denied Social Security benefits and are seeking judicial review of that denial in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Kimberly Y. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-1074), a federal district court in Minnesota reviewed a Social Security benefits dispute. Plaintiff Kimberly Y. had asked the court to overturn the Social Security Administration's denial of her benefits, while the Commissioner of Social Security asked the court to uphold that denial.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins had previously issued a Report and Recommendation on January 30, 2026, recommending that the court side with the Commissioner. Neither party objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it only for clear error — a less searching standard of review than if objections had been filed.
Finding no clear error, 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 denial of benefits. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Kimberly Y. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01074
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 17, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Kimberly Y. brought this action against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, challenging the agency's denial of her Social Security benefits. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of her benefits claim or the basis for the agency's denial.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 30, 2026, recommending that Kimberly Y.'s request for relief be denied and the Commissioner's request for relief be granted. The specific reasoning in the R&R is not set out in this order.
Standard of Review
Because neither party filed objections to the R&R, the district court reviewed it only for "clear error" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). This is a deferential standard; the court does not re-examine the merits from scratch but looks only for obvious mistakes.
Ruling
Finding no clear error, Judge Tostrud:
- Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25).
- Denied Plaintiff's request for relief (ECF No. 12).
- Granted the Commissioner's request for relief (ECF No. 21).
- Affirmed the denial of Social Security benefits.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes
The order is brief and ministerial in nature, adopting the R&R without independent substantive analysis. The full reasoning underlying the outcome would be found in Magistrate Judge Elkins's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.