Decaso v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER Affirming and Adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, Denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Granting 16 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Closing Case. Motions Terminated: 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law and Response filed by Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law and Response filed by Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum, 15 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Maria Decaso. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 1/18/2023. See attached document for full details. (pwn)

Case 0:22-cv-60814-RAR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-CV-60814-RAR
MARIA DECASO,
Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Strauss’s
Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 17] (“Report”), filed on December 30, 2022. The Report
recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 15]
(“Plaintiff’s Motion”), and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 16]
(“Defendant’s Motion”). See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Plaintiff of her right to
object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Id. at 12. The time for objections has passed, and
there are no objections to the Report.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, a district court must
review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected,
however, “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 note to 1983
addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme
Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections

Case 0:22-cv-60814-RAR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 2 of 2

have been properly filed, not when neither 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.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). 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)).
Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review.
Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report, [ECF No. 17], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion, [ECF No. 15], is DENIED.
3. Defendant’s Motion, [ECF No. 16], is GRANTED.
4. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, final judgment will be
entered by separate order.
5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case, and any pending motions are DENIED as
moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 18th day of January, 2023.

_________________________________
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2