Cortaza v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: ANTONIO JAVIER CORTAZA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Date published: Feb 21, 2023

20-cv-23705-ALTMAN/Goodman (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2023)

Opinion

20-cv-23705-ALTMAN/Goodman

02-21-2023

ANTONIO JAVIER CORTAZA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ROY K. ALTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

ROY K. ALTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On April 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] (the “Plaintiff's MSJ”). The Defendant responded to the Plaintiff's MSJ and filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment on May 16, 2022. See [ECF No. 25] (the “Defendant's MSJ”). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, see Notice of Referral [ECF No. 3], who recommended that we deny the Plaintiff's MSJ and grant the Defendant's MSJ, see Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 30] (the “R&R”) at 2. Magistrate Judge Goodman also warned the parties as follows:

The parties will have 14 days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party's objection within 14 days of the objection. Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in the Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. See 29 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).

Id. at 34. 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:

1. The R&R [ECF No. 30] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

2. The Plaintiff's MSJ [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.

3. The Defendant's MSJ [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED.

4. This case shall remain CLOSED.

5. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot, all hearings are CANCELLED, and any deadlines are TERMINATED.

6. Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 58, THE COURT WILL ENTER FINABJUDGMENT'SEPARATELY.