Cedrick D.H. v. Bisignano
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-01190
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cedrick D.H. v. Bisignano, Judge Blackwell affirmed the Social Security Commissioner's decision, denying the plaintiff's request for relief.
Individuals who appeal Social Security Administration decisions in the District of Minnesota and whose cases are resolved on a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without objection — particularly those whose benefits claims were denied and who sought judicial review.
What happened
In Cedrick D.H. v. Bisignano (Civ. No. 25-1190), a plaintiff identified only as Cedrick D.H. challenged a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on January 31, 2026, suggesting that the Commissioner's decision should be upheld. The plaintiff did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time.
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a less demanding standard than a full review. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis and accepted the recommendation in full.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell issued the final order on February 24, 2026. He 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 in favor of the Commissioner.
The detailed version
- Cedrick D.H. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01190
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Feb. 24, 2026
Background
This is a Social Security appeal in which the plaintiff, identified as Cedrick D.H. (the District of Minnesota uses only first name and last initial for nongovernmental parties in Social Security cases), challenged a decision by Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security. The plaintiff was represented by James H. Greeman of Greeman Toomey. The Commissioner was represented by attorneys from the United States Attorney's Office and the Social Security Administration.
Magistrate Judge Proceedings
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard. On January 31, 2026, Magistrate Judge Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. No. 15). The opinion does not describe the substance of the R&R beyond its ultimate recommendation, which was to deny the plaintiff's request for relief and grant the Commissioner's request for relief.
No party filed objections to the R&R within the permitted time period.
Standard of Review
When no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent. Clear error is a deferential standard — the court will accept the magistrate's recommendation unless something is plainly and obviously wrong. Judge Blackwell found no clear error.
Disposition
Judge Blackwell issued the following rulings: - The January 31, 2026 R&R (Doc. No. 15) is accepted. - Plaintiff's request for relief (Doc. No. 9) is denied. - Defendant's request for relief (Doc. No. 12) is granted. - The Commissioner's underlying Social Security decision is affirmed.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not detail the underlying medical or administrative record, the nature of the Social Security claim (e.g., disability insurance or supplemental security income), or the specific grounds on which the magistrate judge recommended affirmance.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.