Arlene Marie Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Florida

Arlene Marie Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided June 9, 2026·No. 9:22-cv-81061·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81061-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

ARLENE MARIE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on May 11, 2026 [ECF No. 35]. The Report recommends denial without prejudice of Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney Fees (the “Petition”) [ECF No. 33], with leave to refile. Neither party filed an objection to the Report. Upon review of the Report and the Motions, the Report [ECF No. 35] is ACCEPTED; the Motion [ECF No. 55] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report; and Plaintiff may file an amended Petition on or before June 22, 2026. *** To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo 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. CASE NO. 22-81061-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. TK Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 35] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Petition for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 33] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report. 3. Plaintiff may file an amended petition on or before June 22, 2026. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of June 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81061-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

ARLENE MARIE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on May 11, 2026 [ECF No. 35]. The Report recommends denial without prejudice of Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney Fees (the “Petition”) [ECF No. 33], with leave to refile. Neither party filed an objection to the Report. Upon review of the Report and the Motions, the Report [ECF No. 35] is ACCEPTED; the Motion [ECF No. 55] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report; and Plaintiff may file an amended Petition on or before June 22, 2026. *** To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo 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. CASE NO. 22-81061-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. TK Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 35] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Petition for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 33] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report. 3. Plaintiff may file an amended petition on or before June 22, 2026. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of June 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record

Arlene Marie Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Fla. 2026).

Pincite

Arlene Marie Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security (Arlene Marie Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related