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 denied the plaintiff's Social Security appeal and sided with the Commissioner.
Social Security claimants in the District of Minnesota who appeal agency decisions to federal court. This order affects Cynthia E. specifically, whose request for relief from the Social Security Administration's decision was denied.
What happened
In Cynthia E. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Case No. 25-CV-1095), a federal court in Minnesota reviewed a Social Security benefits dispute in which the plaintiff, Cynthia E., challenged a decision by the Social Security Administration. The case had been referred to a 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 be granted.
Neither party objected to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation within the required time period. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the magistrate's recommendations only for obvious, clear errors rather than conducting a full independent review. The court found no such clear errors in the Report and Recommendation.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the Report and Recommendation in full, denied Cynthia E.'s request for relief, and granted the Commissioner's request for relief. Judgment was ordered to be entered in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration.
The detailed version
- Cynthia E. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01095
- Leo Brisbois
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
This is a Social Security appeal in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff, identified only as Cynthia E. (a common practice in Social Security cases to protect claimant privacy), brought suit against Frank Bisignano in his capacity as Commissioner of Social Security Administration, challenging an agency decision. The nature of the underlying Social Security claim — for example, whether it involves disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income — is not described in this order.
Referral to Magistrate Judge
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 14, 2026. The R&R recommended denying the plaintiff's request for relief (ECF No. 9) and granting the defendant Commissioner's request for relief (ECF No. 11). The specific legal analysis and reasoning underlying those recommendations are contained in the R&R itself, which is not reproduced in this order.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R within the prescribed period, the district court reviews the R&R only for "clear error" — meaning the court will accept the R&R unless it contains an obvious mistake. No party filed objections to the January 14, 2026 R&R. Accordingly, Judge Brasel applied the clear error standard, citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Ruling
Finding no clear error, Judge Brasel accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court denied Cynthia E.'s request for relief and granted the Commissioner's request for relief. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. Because neither party objected to the R&R, the merits analysis rests on Magistrate Judge Brisbois's underlying Report and Recommendation rather than on any independent analysis by Judge Brasel in this order.
Limitations of This Summary
This order is a brief acceptance order and does not describe the substance of the plaintiff's Social Security claim, the administrative history, or the legal reasoning used by Magistrate Judge Brisbois. Readers seeking the full legal analysis would need to consult the January 14, 2026 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.