SOSA LEON
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.
This case involves judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of Sosa Leon's claim for disability benefits and supplemental security income. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Administrative Law Judge applied correct legal standards and the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income, finding that the Administrative Law Judge applied the correct legal standards and the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
“The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the correct legal standards and the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.”
This establishes the basis for the court's affirmance of the Commissioner's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSosa Leon filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision denying his claim for a perio…
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 Judicial Review Of Social Security Administration Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (“Commissioner") decision denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income (Dkt. 1). The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed (Dkt. 23). The time for filing objections has passed.
After an independent review of the record, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Having conducted an independent review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Flynn's thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the correct legal standards and the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) The report and recommendation (Dkt. 23) is approved, confirmed, and adopted in all respects and is made a part of this order.
2) The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income is affirmed.
3) The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner, terminate any pending motions, and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 22, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of record