Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 24, 2026

D.H. v. Bisignano

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:25-cv-01190
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecuritySummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Cedrick D.H. v. Bisignano, Judge Blackwell affirmed the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiff's claim for benefits.

Who this affects

Individuals who have appealed a Social Security benefits denial to federal court and are awaiting a ruling, particularly those whose cases have been reviewed by a magistrate judge.

What happened

In Cedrick D.H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-1190), a Minnesota federal court reviewed a Social Security appeal in which the plaintiff challenged the agency's denial of his benefits claim. A magistrate judge had previously issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the Commissioner's decision should be upheld, and no objections were filed to that recommendation within the allowed time.

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a lenient standard that looks for obvious mistakes rather than conducting a full re-examination of the case. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, denied the plaintiff's request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and affirmed the Social Security Administration's original decision. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
D.H. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01190
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
Feb. 24, 2026

Background

The plaintiff, identified only as Cedrick D.H. under the District of Minnesota's policy of using only first names and last initials for nongovernmental parties in Social Security appeals, brought this action challenging a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The nature of the underlying benefits claim (e.g., disability insurance or supplemental security income) is not described in this order. The plaintiff was represented by James H. Greeman of Greeman Toomey. The Commissioner was represented by attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Social Security Administration.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 31, 2026, recommending that the plaintiff's request for relief be denied and the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. The specific reasoning of the R&R is not reproduced in this order.

Standard of Review

Because neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted, District Judge Blackwell reviewed it only for clear error — a deferential standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) — rather than conducting a fresh, independent review. The court found no clear error in the R&R.

Ruling

Judge Blackwell accepted the R&R in full, denied the plaintiff's request for relief, granted the defendant Commissioner's request for relief, and affirmed the Commissioner's underlying decision on the benefits claim. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Practical Effect

The Commissioner's denial of benefits stands. The plaintiff did not preserve any objections to the magistrate judge's analysis at the district court level, which may affect any further review of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.