From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bryan v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Feb 23, 2021
Case No. 19-cv-63164-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 19-cv-63164-BLOOM/Valle

02-23-2021

LANETTE BRYAN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Lanette Bryan's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [27] ("Plaintiff's Motion"), and Defendant Andrew Saul's, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [28] ("Defendant's Motion"). 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 Alicia O. Valle, United States Magistrate Judge, 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. [19]. On February 6, 2021, Judge Valle issued her Report and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, and she recommended that Defendant's Motion be granted. ECF No. [31] ("Report"). The Report further advised the parties that any objections to the Report were due within fourteen days of being served with a copy. Id. at 28; 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 Report, the record in this case and 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 Magistrate Judge Valle's Report to be well-reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the Report 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. Judge Valle's Report, ECF No. [31], is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [27], is DENIED.

3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [28], is GRANTED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 23, 2021.

/s/ _________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: The Honorable Alicia O. Valle Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Bryan v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Feb 23, 2021
Case No. 19-cv-63164-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2021)
Case details for

Bryan v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:LANETTE BRYAN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Date published: Feb 23, 2021

Citations

Case No. 19-cv-63164-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2021)