UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID

CASE NO. 20-23372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

LOURDES MARIA ARAGON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

1 Acting Commissioner 

of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER

On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff, Lourdes Maria Aragon, filed a Complaint seeking review 

of Defendant’s decision denying her supplemental security income. (See generally Compl. [ECF 

No. 1]). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. (See Clerk’s Notice [ECF No. 2]). Thereafter, Plaintiff 

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) [ECF No. 23], and Defendant, Kilolo 

Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”) [ECF No. 24]. 

On June 21, 2021, Magistrate Judge Goodman entered his Report and Recommendation 

(“Report”) [ECF No. 26], recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion, grant Defendant’s 

Motion, and enter a final judgment in favor of Defendant. The Report advised the parties they had 

14 days to file objections to the Report. (See id. 16–17). To date, no objections have been filed.

1 Plaintiff initially brought suit against Andrew Saul, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration at the time of filing. Since then, Kilolo Kijakazi replaced Andrew Saul as the Acting 

Commissioner. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi should be substituted 

for Andrew Saul as the suit’s Defendant. 

Case 1:20-cv-23372-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 20-23372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

2

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 (citations

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 Report summarizes Plaintiff’s background and the procedural history of this case; 

acknowledges the standard of review in an appeal of an adverse benefits decision; lays out the 

five-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. sections 416.920(a) and 404.1520 for a disability 

determination; describes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) at each step; and 

carefully considers and evaluates Plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ failed to (1) support the 

findings with substantial evidence and (2) assess Plaintiff and her mother’s “subjective complaints 

about the severity of her symptoms and the limitations caused by her symptoms.” (Report 7).

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 Magistrate Judge Goodman’s

Case 1:20-cv-23372-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 20-23372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

3

Report and agrees with his conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied, Defendant’s 

Motion should be granted, and a final judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 26] is AFFIRMED AND 

ADOPTED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] is DENIED. 

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED. 

3. Final judgment shall issue separately. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 8th day of December, 2021.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman

counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23372-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 3 of 3