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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?