TUBENS
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.
Christopher Paul Tubens appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review of legal conclusions, affirmed the Commissioner's final decision denying benefits.
The court affirmed the final decision of the Commissioner denying Tubens's claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after conducting de novo review of legal conclusions.
“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 for district court evaluation of magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Paul Tubens filed an appeal of an administrative decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Social Security Dis…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Christopher Paul Tubens, initiated this appeal of an administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. (See Dkt. 1.) United States Magistrate Leslie Hoffman Price entered a report and recommendation recommending that the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. (Dkt. 19.) Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed.
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 County. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
2. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 21, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)