CICORELLI
v.
O'MALLEY, 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 Report and Recommendation, granting the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the claimant's cross-motion. The court found no clear error in the magistrate's factual findings or legal conclusions.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Commissioner's decision should be upheld, granting the defendant's summary judgment motion and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court found no clear error in the magistrate's findings or legal conclusions.
“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 parties to object to magistrate judge reports
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCicorelli challenged a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security regarding benefits eligibility. The case involved competing motions for summary…
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 Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on January 14, 2025 [ECF No. 16]. 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. 13] 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. 16] is ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13] 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. 24-80141-CIV-CANNON/Augustin-Birch
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. 16] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13] 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 17th 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)