Brabham v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Florida

Brabham v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 18, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-23923

StatusUnknown

This text of Brabham v. Commissioner of Social Security (Brabham v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brabham v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Fla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23923-BLOOM/Louis

ADRIAN BRABHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [27], filed on September 17, 2021 (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [32] (“Defendant’s Motion”), filed on December 20, 2021. The Motions were previously referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis for a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters. See ECF No. [26]. On August 3, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and Defendant’s Motion be granted. ECF No. [34]. The R&R states that the parties shall file any objections within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of a copy of the R&R. Id. at 22-23. To date, the parties have not filed any objections, nor have the parties sought additional time in which to do so. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The Court, therefore, agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiff’s Case No. 20-cv-23923-BLOOM/Louis

Motion must be DENIED and Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED for the reasons set forth therein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The R&R, ECF No. [34], is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [27], is DENIED; 3. Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. [32], is GRANTED; 4. The Commissioner’s decision, ECF No. [24], is AFFIRMED; 5. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and, 6. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 18, 2022.

BETHBLOOM =—C UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: 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

Case No. 20-cv-23923-BLOOM/Louis

ADRIAN BRABHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [27], filed on September 17, 2021 (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [32] (“Defendant’s Motion”), filed on December 20, 2021. The Motions were previously referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis for a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters. See ECF No. [26]. On August 3, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and Defendant’s Motion be granted. ECF No. [34]. The R&R states that the parties shall file any objections within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of a copy of the R&R. Id. at 22-23. To date, the parties have not filed any objections, nor have the parties sought additional time in which to do so. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The Court, therefore, agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiff’s Case No. 20-cv-23923-BLOOM/Louis

Motion must be DENIED and Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED for the reasons set forth therein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The R&R, ECF No. [34], is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [27], is DENIED; 3. Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. [32], is GRANTED; 4. The Commissioner’s decision, ECF No. [24], is AFFIRMED; 5. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and, 6. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 18, 2022.

BETHBLOOM =—C UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brabham v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brabham-v-commissioner-of-social-security-flsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack