UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alan L.,1 Case No. 25-CV-2377 (JMB/LIB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
Edward C. Olson, Reitan Law Office, Minneapolis, MN; and Clifford Michael Farrell
(pro hac vice), Manring & Farrell, Dublin, OH, for Plaintiff Alan L.
James D. Sides and Shea Taulbee, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for
Defendant Frank Bisignano.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
United States Magistrate Leo I. Brisbois dated April 30, 2026. (Doc. No. 23.) The R&R
recommends that Plaintiff Alan L.’s request for relief be granted, and the Commissioner’s
denied, and that the matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administration proceedings consistent with
the discussion in the R&R. (See id.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time
to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any non-
governmental party on orders in Social Security matters.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-
captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. No. 23) is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff Alan L.’s request for relief (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED.
3. The Commissioner’s request for relief (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED.
4. This action is REMANDED back to the Social Security Administration pur-
suant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative pro-
ceedings consistent with the R&R.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 3, 2026 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.