UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

ARIANA MIRANDA HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:23-cv-598-MMH-PRL

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20; Report) entered by the Honorable Philip R. Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 13, 2025. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed. See Report at 8. On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff Ariana Miranda Henry filed objections to the Report, see Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21; Objections), and on March 5, 2025, the Commissioner filed a response to the Objections, see Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22; Response to Objections). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. Because the Court finds that the Objections are due to be overruled and the Report is due to be adopted as the Court’s opinion, the Court will not repeat the factual background or the arguments and authority addressed in the Report. Instead, the Court writes briefly only to address Henry’s specific

objections. I. Standard of Review The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b). Under

Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Rule 72(b)(3); see also

(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal

conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also 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.”); Dupree v. Warden,

, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do

1 Judge Lammens properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1 n.1. not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not”).

II. Discussion In the Objections, Henry argues that the “Court should decline to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion of Dr. Pasco.” Objections at 1. Specifically, Henry contends that the “Magistrate

Judge’s endorsement of the ALJ’s supportability analysis was without merit” because the ALJ “selectively reviewed the evidence” in the record and failed to consider Dr. Pasco’s “treatment notes.” See

at 3–4 (alterations omitted). This argument is unavailing.

Here, the ALJ found Dr. Pasco’s opinion to be “unpersuasive” because it “was comprised mostly of checkmarks and inadequately provided medical/clinical findings to support” her “extreme assessments.” See Administrative Record at 22 (Doc. 10), filed December 11, 2023. Moreover,

contrary to Henry’s contention, the ALJ considered Dr. Pasco’s treatment notes and found them to be “inconsistent with the evidence” in the record.

Based upon these findings, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the ALJ adequately “addressed both the supportability and consistency of Dr. Pasco’s opinion and

found it to be unpersuasive.” Report at 8. And therefore recommends that “the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Pasco’s opinion” be affirmed.

Because the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, Henry’s objection is due to be overruled. See Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,

(11th Cir. 2014) (If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.”). III. Conclusion Upon review of the record, the Court will overrule Henry’s objection, and will accept and adopt the Report as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is OVERRULED. 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security and against Ariana Miranda Henry and to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 20th day of March, 2025.

United States District Judge

Lc32

Copies to: The Honorable Philip R. Lammens United States Magistrate Judge

Counsel of Record