Brent R. v. Bisignano
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01563
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Brent R. v. Bisignano, Judge Menendez accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and remanded a Social Security case for further administrative proceedings.
People who have applied for Social Security benefits and are challenging an administrative denial in federal court. This order illustrates how such cases can be sent back to the Social Security Administration for further review when the court finds the administrative proceedings were flawed.
What happened
In Brent R. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-1563), a plaintiff identified only as Brent R. challenged a decision by the Social Security Administration and asked the federal court to grant him relief. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on May 26, 2026, concluding that the plaintiff's request should be granted and the case sent back to the Social Security Administration for further review.
Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation by the June 9, 2026 deadline. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the report only for clear error — a less demanding standard than a full, fresh review. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's conclusions.
United States District Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation, granted the plaintiff's request for relief, denied the defendant's request for relief, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings under the applicable federal statute. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Brent R. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01563
- Katherine Menendez
- June 18, 2026
Background
The plaintiff, identified only as Brent R. pursuant to the District of Minnesota's policy of using only the first name and last initial of nongovernmental parties in Social Security opinions, brought this action against Frank Bisignano in his capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The plaintiff sought judicial review of an administrative decision and requested relief from the court.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 26, 2026, recommending that the plaintiff's request for relief be granted and that the case be remanded — sent back — to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner (defendant) had also filed his own request for relief, which the R&R recommended denying. The opinion does not detail the specific legal findings or reasoning set out in the R&R itself.
Standard of Review
The deadline for either party to object to the R&R was June 9, 2026, under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Neither party filed objections. When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews the R&R only for "clear error" — meaning it will accept the recommendation unless something is plainly and obviously wrong. The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County and Grinder v. Gammon as authority for this standard.
Rulings
Judge Menendez found no clear error in the R&R and issued the following orders:
- The R&R (Dkt. 26) is accepted.
- The plaintiff's request for relief (Dkt. 18) is granted as set forth in the R&R.
- The defendant's request for relief (Dkt. 24) is denied as set forth in the R&R.
- The case is remanded to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) — the federal statute governing judicial review of Social Security decisions — for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. A sentence-four remand under § 405(g) is a final judgment that terminates the federal court case while directing the agency to conduct further proceedings.
Notes
The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security claim, the nature of the administrative decision being challenged, or the specific errors identified by the Magistrate Judge. Those details would be found in the R&R itself, which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.