Charles v. Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 25 Defendnat's Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting 29 Report and Recommendation; and Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 14-61761-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

JEAN MARIE CHARLES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER
On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff Jean Marie Charles (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint seeking a
review of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s (“Defendant”) decision denying disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. [ECF No. 1]. This matter was referred to Magistrate
William J. Turnoff for a report and recommendation on dispositive matters [ECF No. 4].
Thereafter, the parties filed their respective cross-motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 24
& 25]. On August 17, 2016, Judge Turnoff issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
[ECF No. 29], recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, grant Defendant’s motion,
and affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”). Plaintiff has not timely
objected to the Report.
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 objection is 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.

1

2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only
review the report and recommendation for “clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The
Court has undertaken this review and has found no clear error in the analysis and
recommendations stated in the Report. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 29] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED as follows:
1.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.

2.

The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and all pending motions are DENIED as

moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of September,
2016.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Magistrate Judge Turnoff
All Counsel of Record

2