JUSTIN
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
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 affirmed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant Social Security Administration's motion for summary judgment in a benefits dispute.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court affirmed the Report.
“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.”
Establishes that de novo review is not required when no party objects to the magistrate judge's recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Justin filed a motion for summary judgment against the Social Security Administration. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendati…
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 Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Louis's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 23] (“Report”), filed on July 22, 2024. The Report recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 19] ("Plaintiff's Motion”), and grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 20] ("Defendant's Motion"). See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Plaintiff of her right to object to Magistrate Judge Louis's findings. Id. at 13–14. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, a district court must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress's intent was to only require de novo review where objections
have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See 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.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]'s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings." Lewis v. Smith, 855 F. 2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report, [ECF No. 23], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 19], is DENIED. 3. Defendant's Motion, [ECF No. 20], is GRANTED. 4. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, final judgment will be entered by separate order.
5. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 6th day of August, 2024.
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1988)