Cynthia M. Yoder v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:26-CV-13 CYNTHIA M. YODER, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER FRANK J. BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. ) On January 27, 2026, plaintiff filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security [D.E. 1]. On January 27, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. On February 12, 2026, the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank for a memorandum and recommendation [D.E. 4]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

On February 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Swank issued a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) [D.E. 5]. In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Swank recommended that (1) the court grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) the court construe plaintiff's complaint as an action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final administrative decision of the commissioner of the Social Security Administration and that the clerk continue management of the case under the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and (3) the court dismiss as frivolous or for failure to state claim any other claims in plaintiff’s complaint. See id. at 5-6. On February 27, 2026, plaintiff filed objections to the M&R [D.E. 6].

“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 recommendations to which objection is made.” Diamond v. 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 error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).

The court has reviewed the M&R and the plaintiff's objections. See, e.g., Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. The court adopts the conclusions in the M&R and overrules as meritless plaintiff's objections.

In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 5], GRANTS plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis, PERMITS plaintiff's complaint to proceed as an action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DISMISSES any other claim in plaintiff's complaint.

The clerk SHALL manage the case.

SO ORDERED. This 13 day of March, 2026.

J S C. DEVER Tl United States District Judge