Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-80249-CIV-SMITH
SHALONDA LATRICE
MCCLOUD GARRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE
23] of the Honorable Ellen F. D’Angelo, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment [DE 17] and [DE 18]. In her thorough and well-reasoned Report, the Honorable
D’Angelo recommends that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED, and that
Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report [DE 24], essentially repeating her initial arguments to the Magistrate Judge. Defendant
filed a response to the objections [DE 25].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to
which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific
findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.
2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which
no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v.
WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Case 9:25-cv-80249-RS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 1 of 2

The Court, having considered the Honorable D’Angelo’s Report, Plaintiff’s objections
thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Magistrate D’Angelo’s
well-reasoned analysis and her recommendations. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 23] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and
incorporated by reference into this Court’s Order.
2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE17] is DENIED.
3) Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 19] is GRANTED.
4) Plaintiff’s Objections are OVERRULED.
5) This case is CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of March, 2026.
cc: All counsel of record
Case 9:25-cv-80249-RS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 2 of 2