UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-20688-BLOOM/Louis

YOLANDA MELO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Andrew Saul,

Defendant. ______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff Yolanda Melo’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [17] (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), and Defendant Andrew Saul’s, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [19] (“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 security income under the Social Security Act,

, et seq. See ECF No. [1]. This case was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, 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

and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1. ECF No. [11]. On January 8, 2021, Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in part and that Defendant’s Motion be denied; specifically, that the ALJ’s decision be reversed and that this case be remanded. ECF No. [20]. 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. Id.; see

(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 and the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil,

(11th Cir. 2009) (citing

(b)(1)). Upon careful review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Louis’s 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 granted in part, and Defendant’s Motion should be denied for the reasons set forth therein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Louis’s Report and Recommendations, ECF No. [20], is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [17], is GRANTED IN PART; 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [19], is DENIED; 4. The ALJ’s decision is reversed and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the findings contained in the R&R; and, 5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. Case No. 20-cv-20688-BLOOM/Louis

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 25, 2021.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: The Honorable Lauren F. Louis

Counsel of record