Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Benjamin S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-04565 (ECT/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Benjamin S.’s Motion for Summary/
Default Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (Dkt. 13) (“Motion”). This case has been referred
to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons stated below, the
Motion should be denied.
Plaintiff filed the present Motion, which was dated April 20, 2026, on April 23,
2026. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court reversing Defendant’s denial of his social
security benefits on the basis that Defendant failed to file the administrative record in this
case on or before April 7, 2026, as required by this Court’s February 6, 2026 Order. (Dkt.
13 at 1.) Plaintiff also asserts that he received no notice from Defendant of the
documents being filed with the Court. (Id.)
CASE 0:25-cv-04565-ECT-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
As background, on February 6, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s request to
enlarge the time in which to file the certified administrative record until April 7, 2026.
(Dkt. 10.)
On April 7, 2026, Defendant filed the Certified Administrative Record with the
Court. (Dkt. 12.) On April 28, 2026, Defendant filed a certificate of service representing
that counsel caused the Certified Administrative Record “to be filed electronically with
the Clerk of Court through ECF, and I further certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing
documents to be mailed by first class mail, postage paid, to the following non-ECF
participant on April 27, 2026.” (Dkt. 14.)
The Court finds that Defendant complied with the Court’s Order to file the
Administrative Record with the Court by April 7, 2026 and therefore recommends denial
of the Motion insofar as it seeks an order reversing the denial of benefits based on the
alleged late filing. Further, any request for default judgment should be denied, as
Plaintiff failed to seek entry of default with the Clerk of Court before bringing the present
Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); see also Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d
781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998); Graham v. Nat’l Web Design LLC, No. 20-CV-1575
(KMM/BRT), 2022 WL 190760, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2022) (“Such an entry of
default is a prerequisite to obtaining a default judgment.”).
The Court turns to the deadline for Plaintiff to file his opening brief. Pursuant to
Rule 6 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
the deadline for Plaintiff to file and serve on the Commissioner a brief for the requested
relief was 30 days after the Commissioner filed the Certified Administrative Record, that
CASE 0:25-cv-04565-ECT-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
is, May 7, 2026. Under these circumstances, including Defendant’s service of the
Certified Administrative Record by U.S. Mail on April 27, 2026, the Court extends the
deadline for Plaintiff to file his opening brief to June 1, 2026. To the extent that Plaintiff
needs more time to file his opening brief, he may file a motion requesting such relief
from the Court.
For all of these reasons, the Motion should be denied and Plaintiff must file his
opening brief on or before June 1, 2026.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, and on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
RECOMMENDED that: Plaintiff Benjamin S.’s Motion for Summary/Default Judgment
in Favor of Plaintiff (Dkt. 13) be DENIED.
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED that: Plaintiff Benjamin S. must file his opening brief on or before June 1,
2026.
DATED: May 11, 2026 	s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04565-ECT-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
NOTICE
This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is
therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific
written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within
14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may
respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line
limits set for in D. Minn. LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-04565-ECT-ECW Doc. 15 Filed 05/11/26 Page 4 of 4