GUILLERMO LEIVA
v.
FRANK J. BISIGNANO, 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.
Guillermo Leiva appealed a Social Security Administration denial of benefits. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, rejecting Leiva's motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner's cross-motion.
The district court affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, rejecting Leiva's motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error.
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“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations in district court proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuillermo Leiva sought review of an Administrative Law Judge's decision denying his Social Security benefits claim. The case proceeded through cross-m…
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 37] of the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 33] and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 34]. In her thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Valle recommends that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and the Administrative Law Judge's Decision be affirmed. 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 conducted a de novo review of Judge Valle's Report and agrees with Judge Valle's well-reasoned analysis and her recommendations. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 37] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 34] is GRANTED.
3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 33] is DENIED.
4) The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision is
AFFIRMED.
5) 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
[fn 1]: Frank J. Bisignano was appointed Commissioner of the Social Security Administration in May 2025. Consequently, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank J. Bisignano is substituted for Martin J. O'Malley as Defendant in this case.
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)