# Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, M.D. Florida · June 9, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10113088

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 9, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10113088

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

SHAWN L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-927-MMH-JBT

COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 15; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States
Magistrate Judge, on May 23, 2023. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends
that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. See Report at 1, 7. No
objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Pursuant to 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.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (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, 715 F.3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant
amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or

not.”).
Upon independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will
accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the
Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 8.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the
Commissioner’s final decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 9th day of June,
2023.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10113088. Public record. Not legal advice.