Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Florida

Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 5, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00119

StatusUnknown

This text of Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security (Rosario 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MARGARITA ROSARIO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-119-SPC-NPM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. 17). Judge Mizell recommends affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Neither party objects to the R & R, and the time to do so has expired. So the R & R is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,” a magistrate judge’s R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (8) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the R & R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The Clerk 1s DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 5, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MARGARITA ROSARIO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-119-SPC-NPM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. 17). Judge Mizell recommends affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Neither party objects to the R & R, and the time to do so has expired. So the R & R is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,” a magistrate judge’s R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (8) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the R & R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The Clerk 1s DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 5, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack