Iglesias v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-cv-23265-BLOOM/Louis MILAGROS IGLESIAS, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ____________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Milagros Iglesias’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law, ECF No. [23] (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), and Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi’s, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”), Motion for Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [24] (“Defendant’s Motion”) (collectively, “Motions”). In this case, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. See ECF No. [1]. This case was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1. See ECF No. [20]. On October 14, 2021, Judge Louis issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, and that Case No. 20-cv-23265-BLOOM/Louis Defendant’s Motion be granted. See ECF No. [28] (“R&R”). The R&R further advised the parties that any objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of being served with a copy. Id. at 21-22; see also 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 party has filed objections to the Report, nor have they sought additional time within which to file objections. The Court has nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the record in this case, the applicable law, 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 the R&R to be well-reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied, and Defendant’s Motion should be granted for the reasons set forth therein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The R&R, ECF No. [28], is ADOPTED. 2. The Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [23], is DENIED. 3. The Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. [24], is GRANTED. 4. The Decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. 5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 29, 2021. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record