Desiderio v. Bisignano
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-02981
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Desiderio v. Bisignano, Judge Provinzino adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed with prejudice the Social Security disability insurance benefits case brought by Plaintiff Jessica D., upholding the Commissioner's denial of her benefits.
Individuals who have applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and have had their applications denied, particularly those whose federal court challenges may be reviewed under a deferential standard due to failure to object to a magistrate judge's report.
What happened
In Desiderio v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-2981), Plaintiff Jessica D. sued the Commissioner of Social Security after the agency denied her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. She asked the federal court to throw out the Commissioner's decision and send the case back to the Social Security Administration for further review.
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation on July 30, 2025, advising that Jessica D.'s requests be denied and that the Commissioner's decision be upheld. Neither side raised any objections to the magistrate judge's report within the required time period, which meant the district court only needed to check the report for obvious mistakes.
Judge Provinzino reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no obvious errors, and adopted it in full. As a result, Jessica D.'s request to send the case back to the Social Security Administration was denied, the Commissioner's decision denying her benefits was affirmed, and her lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice — meaning she cannot refile this same claim in federal court.
The detailed version
This case involves a challenge to a final administrative decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Jessica D.'s application for Social Security disability insurance benefits (SSDI). Jessica D. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking judicial review of that denial under the applicable provisions governing Social Security appeals.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 30, 2025 (ECF No. 16). The R&R recommended denying Jessica D.'s motion to vacate the Commissioner's final decision and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for further proceedings, and recommended granting the Commissioner's cross-request that his decision be affirmed.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Under Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), the absence of objections triggers a 'clear error' standard of review — a more deferential review than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are filed. District Judge Laura M. Provinzino reviewed the R&R under that standard, found no clear error, and adopted it in its entirety.
The court's order (1) adopted the R&R; (2) denied Plaintiff's motion to vacate and remand (ECF No. 13); (3) granted the Commissioner's request to affirm his decision (ECF No. 15); and (4) dismissed Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) with prejudice, barring her from refiling this federal court challenge to the same denial. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. The opinion was signed by United States District Judge Laura M. Provinzino on September 3, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.