Rodriguez v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 30

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING Report of Magistrate Judge 29 . Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles See attached document for full details. (hs01)

Case 1:20-cv-22752-DPG Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2022 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 20-22752-CIV-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES
VILMA RODRIGUEZ,
v.

Plaintiff,

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
Acting Commissioner for Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”). [ECF No. 29]. On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a
Complaint seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income. [ECF No.
1]. The matter was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a ruling
on all pretrial, non-dispositive motions and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive
motions. [ECF No. 2]. On December 22, 2021, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report
recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 26] be denied, the
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 27] be granted, and that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Neither party has 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. 2009); see
1

Case 1:20-cv-22752-DPG Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2022 Page 2 of 2

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court finds no clear error with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and
agrees that the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 29] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 26] is DENIED.

(3)

The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 27] is
GRANTED.

(4)

The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

(5)

This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of January, 2021.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2