DENISE COBB
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
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.
Denise Cobb appealed a Social Security Administration decision by seeking to reopen her case. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied her Motion to Reopen, effectively affirming the SSA Commissioner's prior determination.
The Court denied Cobb's Motion to Reopen and affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the motion be denied.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if the objections pinpoint specific findings the party…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review for district court consideration 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 intelligenceDenise Cobb filed a Motion to Reopen in a Social Security Administration matter against Commissioner Martin O'Malley. The Magistrate Judge, the Honora…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 32] of the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen [DE 31]. In her thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Reid recommends that: the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen be denied. No objections were filed. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court, having considered Judge Reid’s Report, conducted a de novo review. The Court, agrees with Judge Reid’s well-reasoned analysis and her recommendations.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 32] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court’s Order. 2) Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen [DE 31] is DENIED. 3) This case is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 4th day of December, 2025.
RODNEY SMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)