ROSARIO
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.
Margarita Rosario appealed a Social Security Administration decision denying her benefits. The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation affirming the Commissioner's decision and found no plain error warranting reversal.
The district court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full, affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The court found no plain error affecting substantial rights or the fairness of the proceedings.
Margarita Rosario filed suit challenging the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her benefits claim. A magistrate judge conducted review and r…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell's Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. 17). Judge Mizell recommends affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Neither party objects to the R & R, and the time to do so has expired. So the R & R is ripe for review.
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," a magistrate judge's R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don't object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing
Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain"; (3) “it affected substantial rights"; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings." Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the R & R in full. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending
motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 5, 2024.
SherPolster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)