UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

VINCENT RUSSOMANNO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-01641-PGB-LHP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. / ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Vincent Russomanno (“Plaintiff”) appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner”) final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. 1; see Doc. 12 (the “initial Brief”)). The Commissioner responded in opposition (Doc. 15), and Plaintiff replied thereto (Doc. 16). Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price issued a Report recommending the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Doc. 17 (the “Report and Recommendation”)). Plaintiff objected (Doc. 20 (the “Objection”)), the Commissioner responded thereto (Doc. 21), and the matter is now ripe for review. Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s Objection is due to be overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted and confirmed. I. BACKGROUND The procedural and factual background as set forth in the Report and Recommendation are hereby adopted and made a part of this Order. (See Doc. 17,

pp. 1–5). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When a party properly objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). The district court “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

The district court must consider the record and factual issues independent of the magistrate judge’s report, as de novo review is essential to the constitutionality of § 636. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ.,

, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). III. DISCUSSION

Simply put, Plaintiff’s Objection boils down to a restatement of the positions he set forth in his initial Brief—positions the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. (See Docs. 12, 17, 20). In other words, Plaintiff essentially “asks the Court to ‘travers[e] ground already plowed by the Magistrate [Judge].’” Winford v. Walton, No. 16-CV-810-J-39PDB,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla.

May 15, 2018) (quotation omitted). However, “[i]t is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the [m]agistrate [j]udge.” See, e.g., Hall v. Sargeant, No. 18-CV- 80748,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018) (quoting Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012)).

Upon filing an objection to a report and recommendation, “parties are not to be afforded a [mere] ‘second bite at the apple.’” See, e.g., Marlite,

, at *2. Such “[o]bjections that . . . simply rehash or reiterate the original briefs to the magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review.” Fibertex Corp. v. New Concepts Distribs. Int’l, LLC, No. 20-20720-Civ-Scola,

, at

*2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2021). “These kinds of objections are instead reviewed for clear error.”

(citing Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006)).1 In the Objection, Plaintiff argues that the Report and Recommendation “incorrectly fills in the gaps for the [Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)],” and thus, “errs in finding that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence and sufficiently

addressed [Plaintiff’s] moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace (CPP).” (Doc. 20, pp. 2–8). In support, Plaintiff merely reasserts arguments made in the initial Brief that the Magistrate Judge has already thoroughly considered, and thus, Plaintiff hardly presents proper objections for this Court to conduct a de novo review. See, e.g., Valido v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-20939,

, at

*3, *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2022) (“A party’s objections are improper if they expand

1 “Unpublished opinions are not controlling authority and are persuasive only insofar as their legal analysis warrants.” Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Const., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2007). upon and reframe arguments already made and considered by the magistrate judge, or simply disagree with the magistrate judge’s conclusions.”). Nevertheless, irrespective of which standard of review the Court employs,

clear error or de novo, the outcome would remain unchanged. Applying either clear error or de novo review here, the Court reaches the same findings and conclusions as the Magistrate Judge in her Report. Ultimately, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff is essentially requesting the Court reweigh the evidence presented before the ALJ or substitute the Court’s judgment for that of

the ALJ—which the Court cannot do as the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

(11th Cir. 2011) (“We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” (alteration in original) (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, following an independent review of the record, the Court agrees

with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned analysis and ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Not to mention, Plaintiff’s Objection merely reasserts the same basic arguments that the Magistrate Judge has addressed in detail, offering no adequate basis to reject the Report and Recommendation. (See Docs. 12, 17, 20); see also Bostick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-1400-T-33AAS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2019). Consequently, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and confirmed in all respects. IV. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 20) is OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order; 3. The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED; 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Vincent Russomanno; and 5. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 18, 2025.

□□ / s PAUL G. UNITED STATES*DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties