UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-61762-ALTMAN/Hunt

QUESHI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case came before us when the Plaintiff sought our review of an Administrative Law 

Judge’s denial of the Plaintiff’s various applications for Social Security benefits. See Complaint [ECF 

No. 1]. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and we 

referred those to Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt for a report and recommendation. See Order 

Referring Case to Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt [ECF No. 16]. And, on January 26, 2024, 

Magistrate Judge Hunt issued his Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 25], in which 

he “RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] be 

GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] be DENIED.” R&R 

at 1. Judge Hunt also issued the following warning:

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above 

findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure 

to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and 

Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Id. at 10. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected. See generally Docket.

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

Case 0:22-cv-61762-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2024 Page 1 of 2
review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. 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 

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 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) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 

410 (5th Cir. 1982)).

Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error on 

the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED

in full.

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

3. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

4. A final judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 58 is forthcoming.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 12, 2024.

_________________________________

ROY K. ALTMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-61762-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2024 Page 2 of 2