Kimberly Y. v. Bisignano
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01074
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Kimberly Y. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Tostrud denied Plaintiff Kimberly Y.'s request for relief and affirmed the Social Security Administration's denial of her benefits.
Individuals who have applied for Social Security benefits and have had their claims denied, particularly those whose cases are in federal district court at the stage of judicial review.
What happened
In Kimberly Y. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Plaintiff Kimberly Y. challenged the Social Security Administration's decision to deny her benefits. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, and Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on January 30, 2026, that sided with the Commissioner. Neither party objected to that recommendation within the time allowed.
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a lower standard of review than would apply if a party had challenged it. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's findings.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full, denied Kimberly Y.'s request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and affirmed the denial of benefits. Judgment is to be entered accordingly, meaning this ruling is final at the district court level.
The detailed version
This order, signed by United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud on February 17, 2026, resolves a Social Security benefits appeal in the case Kimberly Y. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, File No. 25-cv-1074.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 30, 2026 (ECF No. 25), recommending that Plaintiff's request for relief be denied and the Commissioner's request for relief be granted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R on a dispositive matter, the district court reviews it only for clear error. See also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Here, neither Kimberly Y. nor the Commissioner filed objections.
Applying the clear error standard, Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R. The court therefore: (1) accepted the R&R (ECF No. 25); (2) denied Plaintiff's request for relief (ECF No. 12); (3) granted the Commissioner's request for relief (ECF No. 21); and (4) affirmed the administrative denial of Social Security benefits. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Note: The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of Kimberly Y.'s benefit claim, the type of benefits at issue (e.g., disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income), or the specific grounds for the Commissioner's denial. Those details would be found in the magistrate judge's R&R (ECF No. 25), which is not reproduced here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.