Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-cv-20457-ALTMAN/ Elfenbein
ELDIS JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12]. And, on
August 13, 2025, the Defendant moved for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15]. On January 23, 2026,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”)
[ECF No. 19], suggesting that we deny the Plaintiff’s motion and that we enter summary judgment in
favor of the Defendant. Magistrate Judge Elfenbein also issued the following warning:
Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), the parties have fourteen (14) days from the
date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to
file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United States
District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo
determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the
parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained
in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885
F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
Id. at 26–27. That deadline has passed, and neither party has objected to the Report. See generally
Docket.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must
review that disposition de novo. FED . R. C IV . P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
Case 1:25-cv-20457-RKA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2026 Page 1 of 2

the recommendation.” FED . R. C IV . P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although
Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’s
intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here,
when no party objects. See 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.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure
to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these
findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988).
Having reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error
on the face of the Report—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
in full.
2. 	The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.
3. 	The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED.
4. 	This case shall remain CLOSED. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any
pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 9, 2026.
_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-20457-RKA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2026 Page 2 of 2