PASSARELLO
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.
Passarello appealed the Social Security Administration's denial of her benefits claim. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, rejecting Passarello's arguments for reversal.
The district court affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision and granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, finding the magistrate judge's analysis and recommendation well-reasoned and persuasive.
“Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections 'pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.'”
Establishes the standard of review for objections to magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePassarello filed a motion for summary judgment challenging the Commissioner's benefits decision. The Commissioner also filed a motion for summary judg…
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 38] of the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 26] and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 28]. In her thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Valle recommends that: the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and the Administrative Law Judge's Decision be affirmed. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report [DE 40], essentially repeating her initial arguments to the Magistrate Judge. Defendant filed a response to the objections [DE 30].
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 objections are 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, having considered Judge Valle's Report, Plaintiff's objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Valle's well-reasoned analysis and her recommendations. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 38] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2) Defendant Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 28] be GRANTED.
3) Plaintiff Victoria Passarello's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 26] be
DENIED.
4) The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision is
AFFIRMED.
5) This case is CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 4th day of April, 2025.
RODNEY SMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record
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)