Filed: Mar. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BETH BLOOM , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Debra Ann Berg's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [15] ("Plaintiff's Motion"), and Defendant, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Andrew M. Saul's ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [16] ("Defendant's Motion"). In this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of So
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BETH BLOOM , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Debra Ann Berg's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [15] ("Plaintiff's Motion"), and Defendant, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Andrew M. Saul's ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [16] ("Defendant's Motion"). In this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Soc..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BETH BLOOM, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Debra Ann Berg's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [15] ("Plaintiff's Motion"), and Defendant, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Andrew M. Saul's ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [16] ("Defendant's Motion"). In this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, which denied Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. ECF No. [1].
This matter was referred to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, United States Magistrate Judge, consistent with Administrative Order 2014-64, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1. ECF No. [5]. On February 27, 2020, Judge Valle issued her Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, Defendant's Motion be granted, and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") be affirmed. ECF No. [18]. The R&R further advised the parties that objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the R&R (i.e., by March 12, 2020). Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a report and recommendations], any party may serve and file written objections . . . as provided by rules of court."). To date, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed objections to the R&R, nor have they sought additional time in which to do so.
Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R, 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 careful review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Valle's R&R to be well-reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R, and concludes that, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff's Motion should be denied, Defendant's Motion should be granted, and the decision of the ALJ should be affirmed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Valle's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [18], is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [15], is DENIED.
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [16], is GRANTED, and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-styled case.
DONE AND ORDERED.
