UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID

CASE NO. 20-21910-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’Sullivan

FARZIE MOMENPOUR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANDREW M. SAUL,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER

On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff, Farzie Momenpour, filed a Complaint seeking review of 

Defendant’s decision denying her disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. 

(See Compl. ¶ 6 [ECF No. 1]). The matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge John J. 

O’Sullivan for a report and recommendation on dispositive matters. (See Clerk’s Notice [ECF 

No. 8]). Thereafter Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) [ECF 

No. 20], and Defendant, Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”) [ECF No. 21]. 

On June 21, 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan entered his Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 25], recommending the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion, 

deny Defendant’s Motion, and remand the case to the administrative law judge to: (1) re-evaluate

Dr. Josie Ramos’s opinion because the ALJ did not provide good cause to disregard it (see

Report 24–27); and (2) re-evaluate Dr. Pedro Saez’s opinion because the ALJ’s decision to 

afford it “little persuasion and low probative value” was unsupported by substantial evidence 
Case No. 20-21910-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’Sullivan

2

(see id. 27–32 (quotation marks omitted)). The Report advised the parties they had 14 days to 

file objections to the Report. (See id. 33). To date, no objections have been filed.

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts 

must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely 

objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 

record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes 

(citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court 

has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have 

been properly filed, not when neither 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.” (alteration added)). 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) (alterations added; citing Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).

The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to assure 

herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In the light of that review, the 

undersigned agrees with the analysis and recommendations stated in Chief Magistrate Judge

O’Sullivan’s Report, and agrees with his conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted, 

Defendant’s Motion should be denied, and the case should be remanded. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 25] is AFFIRMED AND 

ADOPTED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED. 
Case No. 20-21910-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’Sullivan

3

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is DENIED. 

3. The case is remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings 

under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g) and consistent with the instructions contained in 

the Report. 

4. Final judgment shall issue separately. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 7th day of July, 2021.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Chief Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan

counsel of record