Cynthia E. v. Bisignano
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:25-cv-01095
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cynthia E. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Judge Brasel accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denied the plaintiff's request for relief, and granted the Social Security Commissioner's request for relief.
Individuals who have filed federal court appeals challenging Social Security Administration benefit decisions, particularly those whose cases are decided on a magistrate judge's report and recommendation without objection.
What happened
In Cynthia E. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Case No. 25-CV-1095), a federal court in Minnesota was asked to review a Social Security Administration decision affecting plaintiff Cynthia E. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation on January 14, 2026, recommending that the plaintiff's challenge be denied and that the government's position be upheld.
Neither party objected to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation within the allowed time. Because no objections were filed, the district court was only required to check for clear error — a less demanding standard than full review — rather than examining the case from scratch.
Finding no clear error in the Report and Recommendation, Judge Brasel accepted it in full on March 9, 2026. The court denied Cynthia E.'s request for relief and granted the Commissioner's request for relief, meaning the Social Security Administration's original decision stands. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
This is a Social Security appeal filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Cynthia E. challenged a decision by Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, presumably seeking reversal or remand of a benefits determination, though the specific nature of the underlying Social Security claim (e.g., disability insurance benefits, supplemental security income) is not detailed in this order.
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 14, 2026, recommending denial of the plaintiff's request for relief and granting the defendant Commissioner's request for relief.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R on a dispositive matter within the prescribed period, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error. See also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Here, no objections were filed by either party.
United States District Judge Nancy E. Brasel reviewed the R&R under the clear-error standard, found no clear error, and on March 9, 2026, issued an order: (1) accepting the R&R; (2) denying plaintiff's request for relief (ECF No. 9); and (3) granting the Commissioner's request for relief (ECF No. 11). The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Note: The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of Cynthia E.'s Social Security claim, the specific type of benefits sought, or the reasoning in Magistrate Judge Brisbois's R&R. Those details would be found in ECF No. 15.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.