Opinion
20-CV-62670-RAR/STRAUSS
05-18-2022
JOHN SCHIRICO, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] (“Report”), filed on May 3, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] and deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22]. See Report at 1.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, 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 Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review where objections 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.”). 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 the parties have no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss's findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 25] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.
4. This matter is REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Report.
5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case.
DONE AND ORDERED.