PRESTON
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 district court adopted the magistrate judge's report, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits. A magistrate judge recommended denying the plaintiff's motion an…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 24], regarding Plaintiff Felecia M. Preston’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 19], and Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (the “Commissioner”) Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 20]. On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. [ECF No. 1]. This matter was referred to Judge Strauss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2].
On November 8, 2020, Judge Strauss issued his Report recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed objections 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. The Court agrees with Judge Strauss’s well-reasoned analysis in the Report denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 24],
is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Plaintiff Felecia M. Preston’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 19], is
DENIED.
3. Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 20], is GRANTED. 4. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
5. This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of January, 2021.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTR 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)