AMALIA MORIN v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION AMALIA MORIN, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § FRANK BISIGNANO, § EP-25-CV-00414-DCG-ATB Commissioner of the Social Security § Administration,1 § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION After the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Amalia Morin’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 Anne T. Berton.3 Judge Berton has now issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.”4 For the following reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. IN FULL.

1 The Court has automatically substituted Commissioner Bisignano as the named Defendant in this suit. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d).

2 See generally Compl., ECF No. 1-1, Mot., ECF No. 1.

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

4 See generally R. & R., ECF No. 2.

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 Berton’s R. & R. on September 30, 2025.7 The parties thus had until October 14, 2025 to object to the R. & R.8 Neither party 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.9 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 The Clerk’s office served the R. & R. on September 30, 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)).

9 See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

B. The R. & R. Is Neither Clearly Erroneous Nor Contrary to Law After carefully reviewing Judge Berton’s R. & R., the Court concludes that it’s neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.'° Il. CONCLUSION The Court therefore ACCEPTS Judge Berton’s “Report and Recommendation” (ECF No. 2) IN FULL.

The Court thereby DENIES Plaintiff's “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” (ECF No. 1).

The Court finally ORDERS Plaintiff to pay in full the filing fee within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Should Plaintiff fail to timely pay the filing fee, this matter SHALL BE DISMISSED without prejudice and without further notice.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of October 2025.

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE See generally R. & R. -3-