Silvia Ann Pena v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SILVIA ANN PENA,

Plaintiff Case No. SA-24-CV-01468-JKP v.

FRANK BISIGNANO, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY;

Defendant

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation filed February 13, 2026. ECF No. 26. Magistrate Judge Chestney recommends the Commissioner’s decision be vacated and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. No party filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so expired. Any party who seeks review of all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party does not timely object to all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court will review the unobjected-to proposed findings and recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp.3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016)(citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.)(per curiam), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).! Court records reflect Magistrate Judge Chestney issued the Report and Recommendation on February 13, 2026, and the parties’ attorneys were electronically served that same date. See ECF No. 26. No party filed objections or a Motion for Extension of Time by the deadline. Consistent with § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the Court reviewed the subject Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Chestney for clear error on the face of the record. This Court finds no such error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Chestney’s findings and recommendation and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. As recommended, this Court vacates the Commissioner’s decision finding substantial evidence does not support the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”) findings as to Silvia Ann Pena’s mental limitation and remands this action for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 7th day of April, 2026. C\ NO A) ALDEN. VAALLANV\ JASON PULLIA NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 While Federal Rule 72(b) does not facially require any review in the absence of a specific objection, the advisory committee notes following its adoption in 1983 state: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Further, failure to object shall also bar appellate review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that were ultimately accepted by the district court, unless the party demonstrates plain error. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S, 140, 150-53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.