Jaffe v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 20 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Rachel Jaffe is DENIED. 23 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security is GRANTED. 30 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED.. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 11/17/2022. See attached document for full details. (mab)

Case 0:20-cv-62327-BB Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-62327-BLOOM/Valle
RACHEL JAFFE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Rachel Jaffe’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. [20] (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), and Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security Administration’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [23]
(“Defendant’s Motion”). In this case, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied Plaintiff’s application for
disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. See ECF No.
[1].
This case was referred to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, United States Magistrate Judge,
consistent with Administrative Order 2021-7, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters
and report and recommendations on any dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local
Magistrate Judge Rule 1. ECF Nos. [2], [19]. On November 2, 2022, Judge Valle issued a Report
and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, and that Defendant’s
Motion be granted. ECF No. [30] (“R&R”); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days
after being served with a copy [of a report and recommendations], any party may serve and file

Case 0:20-cv-62327-BB Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 20-cv-62327-BLOOM/Valle
written objections . . . as provided by rules of court.”). To date, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has
filed any objections, nor have the parties requested additional time in which to do so.
Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the record in this
case, and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and
correct, and agrees with the analysis in the R&R.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The R&R, ECF No. [30], is ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [20], is DENIED;

3.

Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. [23], is GRANTED; and,

4.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 17, 2022.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2