Bell v. Bisignano

E.D. North Carolina

Bell v. Bisignano

District Court, E.D. North Carolina·Decided July 22, 2025·No. 7:24-cv-00842·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:24-CV-842-D AMY BELL, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER FRANK J. BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) Defendant.

On September 5, 2024, Amy Bell (“Bell” or “plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Frank J. Bisignano in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Social Security [D.E. 1] and a motion proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II for a memorandum and recommendation on Bell’s Social Security brief [D.E. 18]. On July 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) [D.E. 19]. In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Numbers recommended that the court grant Bell’s request for relief [D.E. 15] and remand the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendaticns to which objection is made.” Diamond y. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear eror

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). Neither party objected to the M&R. Therefore, the court reviews for clear error. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 19], GRANTS plaintiff’s request for relief, VACATES the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling, and remands the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security ‘for further consideration. SO ORDERED. This 42 day of July, 2025.

toa ita — United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:24-CV-842-D AMY BELL, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER FRANK J. BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) Defendant.

On September 5, 2024, Amy Bell (“Bell” or “plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Frank J. Bisignano in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Social Security [D.E. 1] and a motion proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II for a memorandum and recommendation on Bell’s Social Security brief [D.E. 18]. On July 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) [D.E. 19]. In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Numbers recommended that the court grant Bell’s request for relief [D.E. 15] and remand the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendaticns to which objection is made.” Diamond y. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear eror

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). Neither party objected to the M&R. Therefore, the court reviews for clear error. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 19], GRANTS plaintiff’s request for relief, VACATES the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling, and remands the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security ‘for further consideration. SO ORDERED. This 42 day of July, 2025.

toa ita — United States District Judge

Bell v. Bisignano, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Bell v. Bisignano (Bell v. Bisignano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related