Opinion
Civil Action 21-60105-Civ-Scola
04-13-2022
Angel Ramos, Plaintiff, v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Robert N. Scola, Jr., United States District Judge
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow for a ruling on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. Judge Snow has since issued a report, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Angel Ramos's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20), grant the acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21), and affirm the administrative law judge's unfavorable decision. (Report, ECF No. 23.) Ramos has not submitted objections and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Snow's report and recommendation (ECF No. 23), denies Ramos's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) and grants the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21).
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir.1989) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” Local R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, ” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 78384 (quoting Heath, 863 F.2d at 822) (alterations omitted). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 784 (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999).
Ramos has not submitted any objections to Judge Snow's report and recommendation and the time to do so has long since passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Snow's report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts Judge Snow's conclusion that the administrative law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence, that the proper legal standards were applied to evaluate the record, and that no relief is warranted based on Ramos's argument regarding the appointment of the Commissioner.
Therefore, the Court affirms and adopts the report and recommendation (ECF No. 23), grants the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21), and denies Ramos's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20). The Court thus directs the Clerk to close this case.
Done and ordered.