FOSTER
v.
O'MALLEY
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.
Foster challenges the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted Foster's motion for summary judgment, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding for re-evaluation of whether Foster met Listing 5.08 of the Listing of Impairments.
The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for the ALJ to re-evaluate whether Plaintiff met Listing 5.08 of the Listing of Impairments and to conduct any further analysis as necessary.
[1] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's report and recommendation without objection if there is no clear error on the face of the record.
[2] Failure to file specific written objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation results in waiver of the right to de novo review of unobjected-to portions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for objecting to magistrate judge reports and the standard of review applicable to unobjected-to portions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFoster applied for Social Security disability benefits. The Social Security Administration, through an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), denied Foster's…
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 De Novo Review Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on June 16, 2025 [ECF No. 20]. The Report recommends the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] and remand the matter to the Social Security Commission for further proceedings. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon appropriate review of the unobjected-to Report, the Report [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED.
***
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
CASE NO. 24-14242-CIV-CANNON/Augustin-Birch
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.
Upon review, the Court finds no clear error of fact or law in the unobjected-to Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED in accordance with this Order. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED.
3. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED.
4. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for the ALJ to re-evaluate whether Plaintiff met Listing 5.08 of the Listing of Impairments and to conduct any further analysis as necessary in light of that re-evaluation [ECF No. 20 p. 10].
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 2nd day of July 2025.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch