UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22329-GAYLES/TORRES

LAZARO DEJESUS ARMENTEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 23]. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the partially favorable final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits with respect to the period from January 10, 2017, through April 4, 2021. The matter was referred to Judge Torres pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive motions and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive motions. [ECF Nos. 2, 4]. On August 24, 2023, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] be denied, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] be granted, and that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Plaintiff has timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 24]. 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 objection is 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 objection is 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendation that the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] is DENIED. (3) The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED. (4) The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. (5) This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of September, 2023.

af BLK UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE