LAURIELYNN FRANCESE v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

D. New Mexico

LAURIELYNN FRANCESE v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

DecidedDecember 29, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01177

StatusUnknown

This text of LAURIELYNN FRANCESE v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (LAURIELYNN FRANCESE v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

LAURIELYNN FRANCESE v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (D.N.M. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

LAURIELYNN FRANCESE,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 24-1177 KG/GJF

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on December 8, 2025, in which he recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse and Remand [Dkt. No. 15] be denied and this case dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. No. 26. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections no later than December 22, 2025, and that failure to file such objections waived appellate review. To date, and now past the deadline, neither party has filed any objections to the PFRD. The Tenth Circuit has held that “a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The parties’ failure to timely object to the PFRD has waived appellate review of both factual and legal questions. In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199–1200 (10th Cir. 2000); One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d at 1059. Furthermore, the Court concurs with the findings, analysis, and conclusions in the PFRD. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s PFRD (Dkt. No. 26) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse and Remand (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and 3. A final order is entered concurrently herewith DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH

PREJUDICE. /s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

• Please note that this document has been electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document. Electronically filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public access system.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

LAURIELYNN FRANCESE,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 24-1177 KG/GJF

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on December 8, 2025, in which he recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse and Remand [Dkt. No. 15] be denied and this case dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. No. 26. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections no later than December 22, 2025, and that failure to file such objections waived appellate review. To date, and now past the deadline, neither party has filed any objections to the PFRD. The Tenth Circuit has held that “a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The parties’ failure to timely object to the PFRD has waived appellate review of both factual and legal questions. In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199–1200 (10th Cir. 2000); One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d at 1059. Furthermore, the Court concurs with the findings, analysis, and conclusions in the PFRD. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s PFRD (Dkt. No. 26) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse and Remand (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and 3. A final order is entered concurrently herewith DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH

PREJUDICE. /s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

• Please note that this document has been electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document. Electronically filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public access system.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

LAURIELYNN FRANCESE v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurielynn-francese-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-the-social-security-nmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack