UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-20949-GAYLES/TORRES

EDWARD DECASO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant. ________________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 25]. On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to Judge Torres, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre- trial, non-dispositive matters and for a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 3]. On August 26, 2022, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 18], be denied, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 23], be granted, and the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. No objections were filed. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well- reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed. Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 25], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.! 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 18], is DENIED. 3. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 23], is GRANTED. 4. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 5. This action is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of September, 2022.

Df Bld UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE

| Although the Report mistakenly states that Plaintiff applied for disability benefits on March 21, 2021, see [ECE No. 25 at 2], the parties agree that Plaintiff applied for disability benefits on March 21, 2019, see [ECF No. 18 at 1 & ECF No. 23 at 2]. This minor scrivener’s error does not affect the analysis and conclusion.