UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 24-80261-CIV-CANNON/Louis

SUZETTE G. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant, ___________________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 6] AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), filed on March 11, 2024 [ECF No. 6]. On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 3].1 Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Administrative Orders 2023-18 and 2024-10, this case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis “to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to all non-dispositive matters and for a Report[] and Recommendation on any dispositive matters” [ECF No. 5; see ECF No. 2]. On March 11, 2024, Judge Louis issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied and that the case be dismissed as untimely and frivolous pursuant to

(e) [ECF No. 6]. Objections to the Report were due on March 25, 202 [See ECF No. 6 p. 6]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

1 On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Amended Motion”) [ECF No. 9]. Much of the information contained in the Amended Motion is identical to that included in the original, March 7 Motion [See ECF No. 3]. The Amended Motion does not alter the analysis or recommendation set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report [ECF No. 6]. CASE NO. 24-80261-CIV-CANNON/Louis

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 objection 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 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). Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 6], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motions [ECF Nos. 3, 9] are DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED. 4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 2nd day of April 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Suzette G. Rodriguez [email protected] PRO SE