United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-3353 ___________________________

Clara C. Gaither

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration1

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: August 7, 2025 Filed: August 12, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

1 Frank Bisignano has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Clara Gaither appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the award of retirement insurance benefits (RIB). We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the decision. See Cropper v. Dudek, 136 F.4th 809, 813 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review).

Specifically, we conclude substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Gaither applied for RIB as part of her supplemental security income (SSI) benefits redetermination, as the law required her to apply for all other benefits for which she was eligible. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(2) (no person shall be eligible for SSI benefits if, after notice to her by Commissioner that it is likely that she is eligible for any type of Social Security insurance payments, she fails within 30 days to take all appropriate steps to apply for and, if eligible, obtain such payments). Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s determination that Gaither was not entitled to RIB payments retroactive to her 62nd birthday, as she did not become eligible for benefits until she filed an application. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(a) (individual who is fully insured, has attained age 62, and has applied for RIB shall be entitled to RIB beginning with first month throughout which she meets these criteria). We find the district court did not err in deciding Gaither’s case notwithstanding her attempt to subpoena a recording of her telephone call with a Social Security claims representative, see Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (district court does not find additional facts, but determines whether Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in record); or in dismissing her action with prejudice, see Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 59 F.3d 78, 79 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; dismissal with prejudice operates as rejection of plaintiff’s claims on merits).

2 The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2- The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________

-3-