Benjamin S. v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:25-cv-04565
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Benjamin S. v. Bisignano, Judge Tostrud denied the plaintiff's motion for summary or default judgment in this Social Security case, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Social Security claimants who file motions for summary or default judgment during their federal court appeals — particularly those who do not object to a magistrate judge's adverse recommendation, which limits review to the deferential 'clear error' standard.
What happened
In Benjamin S. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (No. 25-cv-4565), a plaintiff identified as Benjamin S. filed a motion asking the court to rule in his favor — either as a summary judgment or as a default judgment — against the Social Security Commissioner.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright reviewed the motion and issued a Report and Recommendation on May 11, 2026, recommending that the motion be denied. No party objected to that recommendation within the deadline for doing so, which meant the court reviewed it only for obvious ('clear') errors rather than conducting a full independent review.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. As a result, Benjamin S.'s motion for summary or default judgment was denied.
The detailed version
- Benjamin S. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-04565
- Elizabeth Wright
- May 27, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Benjamin S. brought this action against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, in the District of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security claim in detail. During the pendency of the case, Benjamin S. filed a Motion for Summary/Default Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (ECF No. 13).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 11, 2026 (ECF No. 15), recommending that Benjamin S.'s motion be denied. The specific reasons for the recommended denial are contained in the R&R itself, which this order incorporates by reference but does not restate.
Standard of Review
Because no party filed objections to the R&R within the applicable deadline, District Judge Tostrud reviewed it under the deferential 'clear error' standard, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eighth Circuit's decision in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Under this standard, the district court will accept the magistrate judge's recommendation unless it identifies a plain mistake in law or fact.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R. Accordingly, the court:
1. Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15); and 2. Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary/Default Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (ECF No. 13).
The opinion does not address any further proceedings, and it does not state the disposition with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.