LILIAH
v.
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.
Lorita Liliah appealed the Social Security Administration Commissioner's denial of her benefits claim. The district court, reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, affirmed the Commissioner's decision and granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment while denying Liliah's cross motion.
The court affirmed the Social Security Administration Commissioner's decision denying Liliah's benefits claim. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and denied Liliah's motion for summary judgment.
Lorita Liliah filed suit against Martin O'Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, challenging the denial of her benefits claim. Bo…
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.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Parties’ cross motions for summary judgment filed by Lorita Liliah (“Plaintiff”), [D.E. 21], and Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”), [D.E. 22]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. On January 9, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, Defendant’s Motion be granted, and that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed (the “Report”). [ECF No. 24]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 25].
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 objection is 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).
Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Chief Magistrate Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 24], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 21], is DENIED;
(4) the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and
(5) this case shall be closed for administrative purposes.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of March, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)