UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61729-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT

JEANNETTE JANDASEK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 

Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 25], filed herein on July 26, 2023. The Court has 

conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 25] and has carefully considered Plaintiff’s 

Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 26].1 The Court is 

otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) on May 2, 2016, 

alleging disability since April 27, 2012. The application was denied initially and upon 

reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which was held before an Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ) on February 14, 2019. The ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled and issued her 

an unfavorable decision. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on May 13, 

2020. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida, and on August 18, 2021, the district court reversed and remanded Plaintiff’s case for 

1 The Court notes that no timely response to Plaintiff’s Objection has been filed.

Case 0:22-cv-61729-WPD Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 1 of 4
further administrative proceedings. 

While Plaintiff’s appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed another application for SSI 

payments. The subsequent application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff 

then requested a hearing before an ALJ but withdrew her request. On August 25, 2021, an ALJ 

entered a notice of dismissal. On February 11, 2022, the Appeals Council ordered that both 

claims, the one remanded by the district court and the subsequent claim, be consolidated and a 

new decision be issued. The Appeals Council also ordered that the previously applicable Social 

Security Regulations be applied to Plaintiff’s case. On June 2, 2022, a second administrative 

hearing was held. On July 8, 2022, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff was not disabled and issued 

her an unfavorable decision. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial 

review of the ALJ’s July 8, 2022 decision. See [DE 1].

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [DE 18]. On 

April 10, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [DE 22]. On July 26, 2023, 

Magistrate Judge Hunt issued his Report, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and 

that Defendant’s Motion be granted. See [DE 25].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United 

States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the 

portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the 

specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be 

sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 

(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific 

Case 0:22-cv-61729-WPD Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 2 of 4
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de 

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 

783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x 

at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the 

record and the Plaintiff’s objections. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff objects to the ALJ’s purported error in failing to apply the correct legal standards 

to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Stojanovic. In his Report, Magistrate Judge 

Hunt carefully and thoroughly explained the reasons that the ALJ afforded little weight to Dr. 

Stojanovic’s opinions. Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ and the 

Magistrate Judge properly evaluated Dr. Stojanovic’s opinions, and the Court agrees with the 

reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. A court should affirm an 

ALJ's decision “if the decision was supported by substantial evidence . . . defined as such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Shinn 

ex rel. Shinn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 391 F.3d 1276, 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hunt that substantial evidence is 

present to support the ALJ’s conclusions. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 25] is hereby 

APPROVED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Objection [DE 26] is hereby OVERRULED; 

Case 0:22-cv-61729-WPD Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 3 of 4
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 18] is hereby DENIED;

4. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 22] is hereby GRANTED;

5. The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED; and

6. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 28th day of August, 2023.

Copies furnished to:

Magistrate Judge Hunt

Counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-61729-WPD Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 4 of 4