ADDISON
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.
In this Social Security benefits appeal, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendant Commissioner's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's factual findings or legal conclusions.
The court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety.
“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 recommendations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAddison brought an action challenging a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The case involved cross-motions for summary judgment filed by…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ellen F. D'Angelo's Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on January 31, 2025 [ECF No. 19]. The Report recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] be denied. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the Report and the Motions, the Report [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report.
***
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,
CASE NO. 24-14166-CIV-CANNON/D'Angelo or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 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. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon review of the Report, the Court finds no clear error of fact in the Report and no errors of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is DENIED. 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, final judgment will be entered separately.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of February 2025.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)