PETROSYAN
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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the Magistrate Judge recommended it be denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the recommenda…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 3, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 17) be denied. See Report at 6. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the Report which the Court construes as his objections to the recommendation contained in the Report. See Objections (Doc. 20; Objections). Thus, this matter is ripe for review. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See
id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”).
While it is apparent from a review of the Objections that Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the Report, he fails to identify any factual or legal error warranting its rejection. See generally Objections. Indeed, very little of the Objections relates to the issue addressed in the Report. Upon independent
review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Barksdale’s Report, the
United States District Judge
Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)