Myricks v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-23978-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES ERRIC SEBASTIAN MYRICKS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ______________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 18], regarding pro se Plaintiff Erric S. Myricks’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 14], and Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (the “Commissioner”) Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 16]. On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. [ECF No. 1]. This matter was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non- dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. On January 5, 2021, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirm the Commissioner’s decision. On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed an untimely response in opposition of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF. No 19], which this Court will treat as an objection to the Report.1 A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. The Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and her conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and the Commissioner’s2 decision should be affirmed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 18], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Plaintiff Erric S. Myricks’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 14], is DENIED. 1 A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations omitted). 2 In this context, “the Commissioner’s decision” refers to the decision at issue rendered by Administrative Law Judge Rebecca Wolfe. 3, Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’ □ Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 16], is GRANTED. 4. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s decision is AFFIRMED. 5. This action is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of January, 2021. DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTR JUDGE