Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 24-cv-24746-BLOOM/D’Angelo
SILVIO HIDALGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEE DUDEK, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Silvio Hidalgo’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. [12], and Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. [15]. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted.
This 	matter 	originates 	from 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Social 	Security 	Administration’s
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on June 10, 2024, concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. After unsuccessfully appealing the decision to the
Appeals Council, Plaintiff filed the instant action, arguing that the Agency’s final decision contains
errors of law and is not supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff proceeded to file his Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant filed a Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF Nos. [12], [15]. Thereafter, the Court referred both
Motions to Magistrate Judge Ellen D’Angelo for a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”). ECF No.
[17]. On January 14, 2026, Judge D’Angelo issued her Report and Recommendation on the Parties’
Case 1:24-cv-24746-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 24-cv-24746-BLOOM/D’Angelo
2
Motions, finding that the ALJ’s determination, as well as her findings and conclusions, were
adequately supported by substantial evidence contained in the record. See ECF No. [18] at 13, 17.
Judge D’Angelo further concluded that the ALJ did not commit an error of law by failing to call a
medical expert to opine on Plaintiff’s residual functioning capacity (“RFC”), as there was already
sufficient evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s RFC determination.1 Accordingly, Judge
D’Angelo recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion and grant Defendant’s Cross Motion.
See ECF No. [18] at 25.
The R&R further advised the Parties that they would “have fourteen (14) days from the
date of th[e] Report and Recommendation to file written objections, if any, with [this Court].
Failure to file objections timely would bar the Parties from a de novo determination by the District
Judge of an issue covered in this Report[.]” ECF No. [18] at 25; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
To date, the Parties have not filed objections, nor have they sought additional time to file
objections. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Judge D’Angelo’s Report
and Recommendation, the record, and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d
1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds Judge
D’Angelo’s Report and Recommendation to be well-reasoned and correct. The Court therefore
agrees with the analysis and concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied,
and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1 To the extent that Plaintiff challenged the conclusions reached by the ALJ, Judge D’Angelo
correctly found that it was beyond the purview of the Court to “decide facts anew, reweigh the
evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.” ECF No. [18] at 25 (quoting
Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014)). Therefore, because the
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, Judge D’Angelo reasoned that the Court
must affirm. See id.
Case 1:24-cv-24746-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 24-cv-24746-BLOOM/D’Angelo
3
1. 	The 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation, 	ECF 	No. 	[18], 	is
ADOPTED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [12], is DENIED.
3. 	Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [15], is GRANTED.
4. 	The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
5. 	All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
6. 	The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on January 29, 2026.
______________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of record
Case 1:24-cv-24746-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 3 of 3