Cynthia E. v. Bisignano
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:25-cv-01095
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cynthia E. v. Bisignano, Judge Brasel accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's request for relief in this Social Security appeal.
Individuals who have appealed a Social Security Administration decision to federal district court in the District of Minnesota, particularly those whose cases are resolved through a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without objection.
What happened
In Cynthia E. v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-CV-1095), a plaintiff identified as Cynthia E. challenged a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation on January 14, 2026, recommending that the plaintiff's request for relief be denied and the Commissioner's request for relief be granted. Neither party objected to that recommendation.
Because no party objected, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a more deferential standard than a full review. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis or conclusions.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Cynthia E.'s request for relief, and granted the Commissioner's request for relief. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Cynthia E. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01095
- Leo Brisbois
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Cynthia E. brought this action against Frank Bisignano in his capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The nature of the underlying Social Security claim — for example, disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income — is not described in this order. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Nancy E. Brasel, with referral to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois for a Report and Recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on January 14, 2026 (docket entry 15), recommending that the plaintiff's request for relief (docket entry 9) be denied and the Commissioner's request for relief (docket entry 11) be granted. The specific contents and reasoning of the Report and Recommendation are not reproduced in this order.
Standard of Review
Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no party objects, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a deferential standard that requires the court to uphold the recommendation unless there is an obvious mistake.
Ruling
Finding no clear error, Judge Brasel:
- Accepted the Report and Recommendation;
- Denied Cynthia E.'s request for relief; and
- Granted the Commissioner's request for relief.
The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes
This order does not describe the merits of the underlying Social Security dispute, the specific type of benefits at issue, or the reasoning behind the magistrate judge's recommendation. Those details would be found in the Report and Recommendation itself (docket entry 15), which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.