Serros v. O'Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION PATRICIA SERROS, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § FRANK BISIGNANO, § EP-24-CV-00332-DCG-MAT Commissioner of the Social Security § Administration,1 § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION After the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Patricia Serros’s claim for disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner’s decision to this Court.2 In accordance with the undersigned Judge’s “Standing Order Referring Social Security Cases,” the Court automatically referred Plaintiff’s appeal to U.S. Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres.3 Judge Torres has now issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) advising the Court to affirm the Commissioner’s decision.4 For the following reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. IN FULL.

1 The Court has automatically substituted Commissioner Bisignano in Former Commissioner Martin O’Malley’s place as the named Defendant in this suit. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d) (“An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity . . . ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name . . . .”).

2 See generally Compl., ECF No. 5.

3 See Standing Order Referring Social Security Cases (W.D. Tex. May 3, 2012).

4 See generally R. & R., ECF No. 12.

I. DISCUSSION A. Neither Party Objected to the R. & R. by the Applicable Deadline, So the Court Will Review the R. & R. Under the Deferential “Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to Law” Standard The standard of review that a District Judge applies when deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation depends on whether a party has objected to it by the applicable deadline. If a party files a timely objection to a report and recommendation, then “the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”5 But if “no party objects to [a] Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” by the applicable deadline, then “the Court is not required to perform a de novo review”; instead, the Court “need only review [the report and recommendation] to decide whether [it] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”6 Here, the Clerk of Court served the parties with Judge Torres’s R. & R. on September 5, 2025.7 The parties thus had until September 19, 2025 to object to the R. & R.8 Neither party

5 E.g., Mission Pharmacal Co. v. Virtus Pharms., LLC, No. 5:13-cv-00176, 2014 WL 12480014, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6 Magdalena Garcia v. Sessions, No. 1:18-CV-59, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Tamayo v. Galindo, No. 5:08-cv-00392, 2008 WL 11333884, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) (similar).

7 Although the R. & R. is dated September 4, 2025, see R. & R. at 16, the Clerk’s office served the R. & R. on September 5, 2025 when it posted the R. & R. to the Court’s electronic docket. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2) (providing (with exceptions that don’t apply here) that when a document is served on “a registered user” of “the court’s electronic-filing system” by filing it on the electronic docket, “service is complete upon filing” (emphasis added)).

8 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing (with exceptions that don’t apply here) that “any party may serve and file written objections to” an R. & R. “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” (emphasis added)). filed an objection by that date, so the Court will accept the R. & R. in its entirety unless it’s clearly erroneous or contrary to law.?

B. The R. & R. Is Neither Clearly Erroneous Nor Contrary to Law After carefully reviewing Judge Torres’s R. & R., the Court concludes that it’s neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.!° Il. CONCLUSION The Court therefore ACCEPTS Judge Torres’s “Report and Recommendation” (ECF No. 12) IN FULL.

The Court thereby AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiffs claim for disability insurance benefits.

The Court will separately issue a final judgment effectuating this Order." So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of September 2025.

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE See supra note 6 and accompanying text. '© See generally R. & R. 'l See FED. R. CIV. P. 58(a) (providing (with exceptions not relevant here) that “[e]very judgment ... must be set out ina... document” that is “separate” from the order granting relief). -3-