SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA

CASE NO. 22-CV-60757-RAR

REINHARD ANTONIO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 19] (“Report”), by Magistrate Judge Strauss, filed on March 1, 2023. The Report recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Garcia’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 16-1], and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 17]. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Plaintiff of his right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’ findings. Id. at 26. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. See generally, Docket. 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). When no party has timely objected, however, “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 note to 1983 addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn,

(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.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). In any event, the “[fJailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith,

(11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright,

(Sth Cir. 1982)). Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it 1s hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 19], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 16-1], is DENIED. 3. Defendant’s Motion, [ECF No. 17], is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, final judgment will be entered by separate order. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 16th day of March, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2