Inrique Sanders v. Frank Bisignano

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION INRIQUE SANDERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00216-RAH-CWB ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On February 17, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (see doc. 22) that, after construing the parties’ briefs as competing motions for summary judgment, recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of the Defendant. The parties were given until March 3, 2026, to file any objections to the Recommendation. Neither party did so.

When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006).

And when no objections are filed, as is the case here, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. See id. Having conducted an independent review of the Recommendation and both parties’ motions, this Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is due to be adopted in full, and contains no clear error. This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that the ALJ adequately considered the medical opinion at issue, the ALJ’s assessment was effectively consistent with the medical opinion, and the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. Further, the Court finds that the VE hypothetical sufficiently conveyed Plaintiffs limitations, and, even ifit did not, failing todo so would have been harmless given that it would have had no effect on the jobs that Plaintiff was determined able to perform. Finally, this Court agrees that the ALJ conducted the proper analysis regarding Plaintiff s alcohol use disorder, and no subsequent materiality determination was necessary.

Accordingly, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (doc. 22) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff Inrique Sanders’ Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 13) is DENIED; 3. Defendant Frank Bisignano’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 14) is GRANTED; 4. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; 5. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; 6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case; and, 7. A separate final judgment SHALL be entered.

DONE on this the 16th day of March 2026.

CHIEF U D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE