CRUZ

v.

SAUL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Becerra (the “Report”) [DE 32], filed herein on April 1, 2022. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 32] and has carefully considered Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations [DE 33] and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 34]. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)).

If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x

at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Plaintiff’s objections.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff objects to the legal standard and reasoning used by the ALJ in evaluating and relying upon the Vocational Expert (“VE”)’s opinion, which in turn relied on JobBrowser Pro. Here, upon review, the Court finds that the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge properly evaluated VE’s reliance on JobBrowser Pro and the Magistrate Judge properly found that that the VE’s testimony provided substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff also objects to the ALJ’s purported error in evaluating the evidence from the two disability time periods at issue and rendering two different determinations. In her Report,

Magistrate Judge Becerra carefully and thoroughly explained the reasons for the differences between the ALJ’s opinion for each disability period and that the ALJ’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations. A court should affirm an ALJ’s decision “if the decision was supported by substantial evidence . . . defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. 3d 1276, 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

I. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 32] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Objections [DE 33] are hereby OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 27] is hereby DENIED; 4. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 28] is hereby GRANTED; 5. The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED; and 6. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 2022.

fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af

CA MAGIA AYN GC

VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Becerra Counsel of record