Levine v. Bisignano
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-01962
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Todd L. v. Bisignano, Judge Bryan adopted a magistrate's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's Social Security appeal, dismissing the case with prejudice.
Individuals who have appealed a Social Security decision to federal court and whose case is reviewed by a magistrate judge — particularly those who do not file objections to a magistrate's report, which limits the district court's review and may result in dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Todd L. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (No. 25-CV-1962), a Minnesota federal court reviewed a Social Security appeal brought by a plaintiff identified only as Todd L. A magistrate judge had previously issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that Todd L.'s request for relief be denied and the case be dismissed. Neither party objected to that recommendation before the deadline passed.
Because no objections were filed, the court applied a limited "clear error" standard of review — meaning it only looked for obvious mistakes in the magistrate's analysis rather than reconsidering the issues from scratch. The court found no clear error in the magistrate's recommendation.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The plaintiff's request for relief was denied, the Commissioner's request for relief was granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice — meaning Todd L. cannot refile this same claim in federal court.
The detailed version
- Levine v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-01962
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Todd L. (identified by first name and last initial only, per the District of Minnesota's policy for Social Security cases) brought this action against the Commissioner of Social Security. The plaintiff was represented by James H. Greeman of Greeman Toomey PLLC in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Commissioner was represented by James D. Sides, Sophie Doroba, and Dennis Golden of the Social Security Administration in Baltimore, Maryland.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 31, 2026, recommending that the plaintiff's request for relief be denied and that the matter be dismissed. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security claim or the specific reasoning in the R&R.
No Objections Filed
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). When no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews the R&R only for "clear error" — a deferential standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), meaning the court looks only for obvious or plain mistakes rather than conducting a full independent review. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), as authority for this standard.
Rulings
Finding no clear error, Judge Bryan issued the following rulings:
- The R&R (Doc. No. 15) was adopted.
- Plaintiff's request for relief (Doc. No. 10) was denied.
- The Commissioner's request for relief (Doc. No. 12) was granted.
- The action was dismissed with prejudice — meaning the plaintiff is barred from refiling this same claim in federal court.
Notes
The opinion does not describe the nature of the underlying Social Security claim, the administrative history, the specific grounds for the magistrate's recommendation, or the reasoning behind the dismissal beyond the procedural posture of unopposed R&R adoption.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.