SMITH
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 accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's motion and granting Defendant's…
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
timely filed an Objection to the Report [ECF No. 22]. Plaintiff’s Objection merely states that he is “opposed to [Judge Maynard’s Report],” and that because of his health, he feels he must “pursue [his case] to the fullest extent” [ECF No. 22 p. 2]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objections is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews 1 Judge Maynard construed [ECF No. 18] “Letter, References, and Exhibits” as Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20 p. 1]. CASE NO. 22-14442-CIV-CANNON/Maynard
de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v.
S. Ry. Co., 37
F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 20], Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 22], and the full record in this case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, the Court finds Judge Maynard’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is therefore DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the Report.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED. a. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is DENIED. b. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED.
2. Final judgment will be entered separately pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 20th day of January 2023.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record
Todd Smith 410 S.W. 7th St. Stuart, Florida 34994 Email: [email protected]