UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 21-14442-CIV-CANNON/Maynard TODD SMITH, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ____________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 181, 19]. On January 5, 2023, following referral [ECF No. 2], Magistrate Judge Maynard issued a report (“the Report”) [ECF No. 20] recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] be denied, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] be granted. Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Objection [ECF No. 21], and Plaintiff timely filed an Objection to the Report [ECF No. 22]. Plaintiff’s Objection merely states that he is “opposed to [Judge Maynard’s Report],” and that because of his health, he feels he must “pursue [his case] to the fullest extent” [ECF No. 22 p. 2]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objections is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones,

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews 1 Judge Maynard construed [ECF No. 18] “Letter, References, and Exhibits” as Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20 p. 1]. CASE NO. 22-14442-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort,

. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil,

, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 20], Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 22], and the full record in this case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, the Court finds Judge Maynard’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is therefore DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the Report. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED. a. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is DENIED. b. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED. 2. Final judgment will be entered separately pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 20th day of January 2023.

AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record

Todd Smith 410 S.W. 7th St. Stuart, Florida 34994 Email: [email protected] PRO SE