Larrazabal v. Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Florida

Larrazabal v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJune 4, 2024

Docket8:23-cv-02081

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Larrazabal v. Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ZULMA ANGELICA LARRAZABAL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2081-VMC-PRL

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. _______________________________/

ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 19), entered on May 20, 2024, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits be affirmed. As of this date, neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604

(11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is

AFFIRMED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 4th day of June, 2024.

hin Gp . Hen, Cri VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ZULMA ANGELICA LARRAZABAL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2081-VMC-PRL

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. _______________________________/

ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 19), entered on May 20, 2024, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits be affirmed. As of this date, neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604

(11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is

AFFIRMED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 4th day of June, 2024.

hin Gp . Hen, Cri VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Larrazabal v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larrazabal-v-commissioner-of-social-security-flmd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack