Seligman v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-CV-62161-RAR/STRAUSS JAY SELIGMAN, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. / ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] (“Report”), filed on January 3, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24], deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25], and remand this case, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 28. Neither party filed a notice indicating any objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to require a de novo review only where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”’). Because the parties have no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 28] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED IN PART. 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is DENIED. 4. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report. 5. The Court hereby enters Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 7. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of January, 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2