Eichelhart v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendations on 14 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Brian Eichelhart, 19 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security; denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; Closing Case. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 5/9/2022. See attached document for full details. (ls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-60801-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
The parties filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 14, 19]. The Court referred
those Motions to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a
Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] (the “R&R”), in which he determined that the Plaintiff’s
Motion should be denied and the Defendant’s Motion should be granted. Magistrate Judge Hunt also
warned the parties as follows:
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure
to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and
Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Id. at 9. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must
review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although
Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’s
intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here,
when no party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress
intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a
de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure
to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these
findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404,
410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, we find no clear error on the
face of the R&R. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE as follows:
The R&R [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 14] is DENIED.
The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED.
The Plaintiff shall take nothing from this suit.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court will enter final
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Any pending motions are
DENIED as moot. All pending deadlines and hearings are CANCELLED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 9th day of May 2022.
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
counsel of record
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?