Benjamin S. v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:25-cv-04565
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Benjamin S. v. Bisignano, Judge Tostrud accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary or default judgment in a Social Security case.
People who have filed Social Security appeals in federal court and are considering moving for summary or default judgment — particularly those whose cases are referred to a magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation.
What happened
In Benjamin S. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-4565), a Social Security plaintiff named Benjamin S. filed a motion asking the court to rule in his favor through either summary judgment or default judgment against Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on May 11, 2026, recommending that the motion be denied. Neither party objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it only for obvious legal error — the standard that applies when no party challenges a magistrate judge's recommendation.
Finding no obvious error, Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation and denied Benjamin S.'s motion for summary or default judgment. The order does not explain the underlying reasoning, which would be contained in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
The detailed version
- Benjamin S. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-04565
- Elizabeth Wright
- May 27, 2026
Background
Benjamin S. brought this action against Frank Bisignano, identified in the caption as Commissioner of Social Security. The nature of the underlying Social Security dispute is not described in this order.
Procedural History
Benjamin S. filed a Motion for Summary/Default Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (ECF No. 13). Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) on May 11, 2026, addressing that motion. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Standard of Review
Because no party objected to the Report and Recommendation, Judge Tostrud reviewed it under the "clear error" standard. 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 objections are filed, the district court is required only to check for clear (obvious) error rather than conducting a de novo (fresh, independent) review.
Ruling
Finding no clear error, Judge Tostrud: (1) accepted the Report and Recommendation, and (2) denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary/Default Judgment.
The order does not itself set out the legal reasoning supporting denial; that reasoning is contained in Magistrate Judge Wright's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.