Anthony W. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ANTHONY W., ) Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-400 (RDA/LRV) FRANK J. BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. ) ORDER This matter comes before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Dkt. 19) as well as the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment (Dkts. 7, 12). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (c)(3), Anthony W. (“Plaintiff’) seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration (“Commissioner” or Defendant”), denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. The Commissioner’s final decision is based on a finding by the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council for the Office of Appellate Operations that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and applicable regulations. Judge Vaala recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion, grant Defendant’s Motion, and affirm the final decision of the Commissioner. Dkt. 19 at 2. The deadline for submitting objections to the Report was March 11, 2026. To date, no objections have been filed.

After reviewing the record and Judge Vaala’s Report, and finding no clear error,' the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Report (Dkt. 19). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. 7) is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter Rule 58 judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to place this matter among the ended causes. IT IS SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia March (& , 2026

/s/ oo

' See Diamond y. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”).