UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-cv-21247-GAYLES/TORRES

LORITA P. LILIAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY,

Defendant. _______________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Parties’ cross motions for summary judgment filed by Lorita Liliah (“Plaintiff”), [D.E. 21], and Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”), [D.E. 22]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Torres, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. On January 9, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, Defendant’s Motion be granted, and that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed (the “Report”). [ECF No. 24]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 25]. 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). Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed. CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Chief Magistrate Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 24], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 21], is DENIED; (4) the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and (5) this case shall be closed for administrative purposes. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of March, 2024.

of DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE