United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on consideration of United
States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 20). Judge
Mirando recommends affirming the Commissioner of Social
Security's decision to deny Plaintiff Madelyn Casanova
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and
supplemental security income (“SSI”). Casanova
has filed timely objections to the R&R. (Doc. 21). The
Commissioner has not responded, and the time to do so has
expired. This matter is thus ripe for review.
Court adopts the factual background detailed in the R&R.
For brevity's sake, the Court will briefly outline the
procedural background. Five years ago, Casanova applied for a
period of disability, DIB, and SSI for her alleged
depression, memory problems, and diabetes. (Tr. 78). After a
hearing, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Ronald
E. Miller denied her application having found that she was
not disabled. (Tr. 15-29). The Appeals Council denied
Casanova's request for review, making the ALJ's
decision the Commissioner's final decision. (Tr. 6-8).
This appeal ensued.
court's review of the Commissioner's decision is
limited to evaluating whether substantial evidence supports
the decision and whether the ALJ applied the proper legal
principles. See James v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 657 F. App'x 835, 837 (11th Cir. 2016). This
review is de novo. Moore v. Barnhart, 405
F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is
more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance,
“and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person
would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155,
1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). Even if the
evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's
findings, the court must affirm if substantial evidence
supports the decision reached. Id. at 1158-59. The
court may not reweigh the evidence and decide the facts anew.
See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir.
2005); see also James, 657 F. App'x at
837. Also, the magistrate judge, district judge, and
appellate judges apply the same legal standards to review the
Commissioner's decision. Dryer, 395 F.3d at
addition, a district judge “may accept, reject, or
modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The district judge “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. And “[t]he judge
may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
stated, the Report and Recommendation recommends affirming
the ALJ's decision. Casanova's objections assert that
the ALJ erred because (1) he failed to articulate the weight
accorded to her treating physicians' opinions; (2) he
gave inadequate weight to her treating psychiatrist's
opinion; (3) substantial evidence does not support the
ALJ's “Paragraph B” criteria ratings and RFC
findings; and (4) he failed to properly assess her alleged
symptoms and limitations. (Doc. 21). Her objections also
assert that Judge Mirando erred to the extent that she
rejected these same arguments. Casanova reasserts her
arguments as presented to Judge Mirando and adds no legal or
factual support for her objections to the R&R. (Doc. 21
on a de novo review of the record and independent
consideration of the parties' arguments and the
controlling law, the Court agrees with the R&R's
findings and recommendations over Casanova's objections.
The Commissioner's decision, therefore, is affirmed.
Plaintiff Madelyn Casanova's Objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 21) are OVERRULED.
United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED and
ACCEPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
Commission of Social Security's decision is
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in favor
of the Commissioner of Social Security, and to close the