ROBINSON
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.
The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, adopting its findings and conclusions.
Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The …
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 Judicial Review Of Social Security Administration Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (DE ) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”) (DE ).
In this case, Plaintiff Tawanda Robinson (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. See (Compl. (DE [1-1]), April 26, 2021).
This case was referred to the Honorable Chris McAliley, United States Magistrate Judge (“Judge McAliley”), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters, and a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1. Judge McAliley issued a Report and Recommendation (DE ) on December 21, 2022. In the Report and Recommendation (DE ), Judge McAliley recommends Plaintiff’s Motion (DE ) be denied, Defendant’s Motion (DE ) be granted, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision be affirmed.
Parties have fourteen days to file any objections to a magistrate judge’s factual findings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). Here, no objections were filed. With no objections filed, the Court’s review of the Report and Recommendation (DE ) is properly limited to a de novo review of only its legal conclusions. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. PharmaTech, LLC, 2019 WL 4673739, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (“Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection.”). This Court has reviewed the entire file and record and has made a de novo review of the issues. No objections to the Report and Recommendation (DE ) have been filed, thus, the Court reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Accordingly,
it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (DE ) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof (DE ) is DENIED.
3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE ) is
GRANTED.
4.
Furthermore, the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision is AFFIRMED.
5. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of January 2023. \ <=
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF