PARKER
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Parker challenges the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her benefits. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm the denial without identifying specific legal or factual defects in the Commissioner's decision.
The court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation in full without requiring further analysis.
“After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."”
Establishes the standard of review the district court applied to the magistrate's recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParker sought Social Security benefits but the Commissioner denied her application. A magistrate judge reviewed the denial and recommended affirming i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
consideration, the court adopts the recommendation.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) ("A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the recommendation in full. Accordingly:
1. The recommendation (Dkt. 21) is ADOPTED. 2. Defendant's decision is AFFIRMED. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in Defendant's favor, to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close the case file.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 12, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
-2-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Jordan v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009)