HUTSON
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.
Hutson sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's denial decision, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
The Commissioner's decision denying supplemental security income is affirmed. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which recommended affirmance, is approved and adopted in all respects.
[1] A district court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo in the absence of an objection.
[2] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation after an independent review of the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“After an independent review of the record, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review the district court applies to magistrate judge reports and recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHutson filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying supplemental security income benefits. A magistrate judge issu…
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.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (“Commissioner") decision denying supplemental security income (Dkt. 1). The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed (Dkt. 17). 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 Adams' thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) The report and recommendation (Dkt. 17) is approved, confirmed, and adopted in all respects and is made a part of this order.
2) The Commissioner's decision denying supplemental security income to Plaintiff 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 May 21, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of record