Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2026

Alicia P. v. Bisignano

Judge
Laura Provinzino
Docket
0:25-cv-03168
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alicia P. v. Bisignano, Judge Provinzino dismissed with prejudice a Social Security complaint after adopting a magistrate judge's report finding no clear error.

Who this affects

Individuals who have filed Social Security-related complaints in federal district court, particularly those who fail to file objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, as doing so limits the reviewing court to a clear-error standard and may result in dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

In Alicia P. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-3168), plaintiff Alicia P. filed a complaint against Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security, challenging an agency decision. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. Alicia P. filed a request for relief that was before the court, as did the Commissioner.

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued the Report and Recommendation, which recommended dismissing Alicia P.'s complaint with prejudice. Because Alicia P. did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation within the allowed time, the district court reviewed it only for clear error — a more limited form of review than if objections had been filed.

Finding no clear error, Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. Alicia P.'s request for relief was denied, the Commissioner's request for relief was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Alicia P. cannot refile this same complaint in federal court. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alicia P. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03168
Judge
Laura M. Provinzino
Date
June 1, 2026

Background

Plaintiff Alicia P. filed a complaint against Frank Bisignano in his capacity as Commissioner of Social Security. The opinion does not describe the underlying substance of Alicia P.'s challenge to the Social Security Administration's decision.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Alicia P.'s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not detail the substantive or procedural reasoning contained in the R&R itself.

Standard of Review

Because Alicia P. filed no objections to the R&R within the time permitted, the district court applied a clear-error standard of review — the most deferential standard available. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), failure to object limits appellate-style scrutiny to whether the magistrate judge's recommendation contains clear error.

Rulings

Finding no clear error, Judge Provinzino issued the following dispositions:

- The R&R (ECF No. 18) was adopted. - Alicia P.'s Request for Relief (ECF No. 13) was denied. - Commissioner Bisignano's Request for Relief (ECF No. 17) was granted. - The Complaint (ECF No. 1) was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Alicia P. may not refile this complaint in federal court.

Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

Notes

The opinion is an adoption order and does not contain independent analysis of the merits or procedural basis for dismissal. The reasoning underlying the dismissal with prejudice is contained in the R&R, which is not reproduced in this opinion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.