Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:25-cv-80311-LEIBOWITZ/REID
TERRY L. RICHMOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,1
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report
and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 33]. 	[ECF
No. 37 (the “R&R”)]. 	Judge Reid recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 33] and affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [ECF
No. 37 at 21]. 	Judge Reid also recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Order Social Security
Administration to File All Secret Evidence into the Record [ECF Nos. 26, 27]. [ECF No. 37 at 21].
Plaintiffs filed objections to the R&R [ECF Nos. 43, 44, 46] and Defendant responded thereto [ECF
No. 50]. Having reviewed and considered the R&R in light of the objections, the parties’ papers, the
relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the R&R is well-
founded, consistent with the evidence presented, and supported by the law. Accordingly, the Court
hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R [ECF No. 37] and AFFIRMS the recommendation.
Plaintiff’s objections [ECF No. 43, 44, 46] to the R&R are OVERRULED for the reasons discussed
below.
1 	Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank Bisignano is substituted
for Leland Dudek as Commissioner of Social Security. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 1 of 7

2
LEGAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report
and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections need not be considered by the district court.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,
1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate [judge],” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record” to accept the
recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment, subdivision (b).
Clear error review is also appropriate where a party’s objections are “conclusory, general, or simply
rehash or reiterate the original briefs to the magistrate judge . . . .” 	Fibertext Corp. v. New Concepts
Distribs. Int’l, LLC, No. 20-20720-Civ, 2021 WL 302645, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2021) (Scola, J.) (citing
Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012)); see also
Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial burden to show the district court,
by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided
at trial.” Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Those materials may include, “depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 2 of 7

3
only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). “Only when
that burden has been met does the burden shift to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there is
indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.” Clark, 929 F.2d at 608.
If the moving party meets its burden, the non-moving party is then required “to go beyond
the pleadings” and present competent evidence “showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Generally, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” supporting the
non-movant’s case is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). If, in response, the non-moving party does not sufficiently support an
essential element of his case as to which he bears the burden of proof, summary judgment is
appropriate. 	See Rice-Lamar v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 232 F.3d 836, 840 (11th Cir. 2000). 	A fact is
“material” for these purposes if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law . . .
.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute of fact is “genuine” if, “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 	Id.; see also Gervin v. Florence, 139 F.4th 1236,
1245 (11th Cir. 2025). “In determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, [the reviewing
court] resolve[s] all ambiguities and draw[s] all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.”
Rice-Lamar, 232 F.3d at 840 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). However, when the record “taken as a
whole” could not support a reasonable finding for the non-movant, there is no “genuine issue for
trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
DISTRICT COURT REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
After completing the administrative process, a claimant may seek review in federal court. See
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1261 (11th Cir. 2007). 	The
scope of review at the district court level is limited to determining if (1) substantial evidence supports
the Commissioner’s findings, and (2) the correct legal standards were applied. Crawford v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). To make this determination, a reviewing court must
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 3 of 7

4
“scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence.” 	Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). 	“Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. It is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id.
In testing for substantial evidence, a court may not “reweigh the evidence” or “decide the facts
anew.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. Instead, so long as the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence, they are conclusive and the court must defer to the ALJ’s decision even if the evidence
preponderates against it. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158–59. However, the court will not “merely rubber-
stamp a decision ... [and] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1257
(11th Cir. 2019); see also Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 F.4th 1094, 1104 (11th Cir. 2021) (“Within
this narrowly limited role, however, the federal courts ‘do not act as automatons’ ... ‘[w]e retain an
important duty to ‘scrutinize the record as a whole’ and determine whether the agency’s decision was
reasonable”) (quoting MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986)). 	Remand is
appropriate for further factual development where the record reveals evidentiary gaps that result in
unfairness or clear prejudice. Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1358 (11th Cir. 2018).
Prejudice “requires a showing that the ALJ did not have all of the relevant evidence before him in the
record (which would include relevant testimony from claimant), or that the ALJ did not consider all
of the evidence in the record in reaching his decision.” Kelley v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir.
1985).
A reviewing court is also required to review the ALJ’s decision to determine if the correct legal
standards were applied. Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). If the court finds an
error in the ALJ’s application of the law, or if the ALJ fails to provide sufficient reasoning for
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 4 of 7

5
determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted, then the ALJ’s decision must be
reversed. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145–46 (11th Cir. 1991).
RULING ON OBJECTIONS
The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Reid’s R&R. 	As an initial
matter, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules. First, Plaintiff filed both “preliminary” and
“supplemental” objections to the R&R,2 a practice this Court has never seen. In doing so, Plaintiff
has filed over fifty pages of objections. That is impermissible under the Local Rules. See S.D. FLA .
MAG . LOC. R. 4(a)(1) (“Absent prior permission from the Court, no party shall file any objections or
responses to another party’s objections exceeding twenty pages in length.”). Second, Plaintiff has filed
verbose objections completely devoid of legal authority. [See generally ECF Nos. 43, 44, 46]; S.D. FLA .
MAG . LOC. R. 4(a)(1) (“Such party shall file with the Clerk of the Court, and serve on all parties, written
objections which shall specifically set forth . . . a concise statement of the alleged error in the Magistrate Judge’s ruling;
and statutory, rule, or case authority, in support of the moving party’s position.” (emphasis added)). 	This
provides an independent basis to overrule the objections. See Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 906
F.2d 645, 649 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Practioners [sic] must adhere to applicable local rules in order for
those local rules to have effect and federal courts by enforcement will preserve the integrity of local
rules, absent problems of a constitutional dimension.”); Chesire v. Bank of Am., NA, 351 F. App’x 386,
388 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] valid local rule has the force of law.”); Kennedy v. Pelc, No. 19-62422-CIV,
2020 WL 13829795, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2020) (Altman, J.) (“Compliance with the Local Rules is
mandatory.”).
On the merits, Plaintiff’s preliminary and supplemental objections to the R&R simply relitigate
issues rejected by Magistrate Judge Reid. [Compare ECF No. 28, with ECF Nos. 43, 44, and 46]. Among
2 	While there are three separately filed objections at [ECF Nos. 43, 44, and 46], docket entries
43 and 44 seem identical.
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 5 of 7

6
other issues, Plaintiff relitigates the ALJ discrediting Dr. Seifer’s opinion and the consideration of the
videotapes or the results of the OIG investigation.3 Re-raising these issues is improper as Plaintiff
“cannot traverse ground already plowed by the magistrate.” Davis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-cv-
02075, 2025 WL 879980, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2025) (alteration adopted) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Doing so merits clear error review. See id.; Fibertex, 2021 WL 302645, at
*2 (“These kinds of objections are instead reviewed for clear error.” (citing Macort, 208 F. App’x at
784)). Her Honor’s recommendation was not clearly erroneous. “Nevertheless, irrespective of which
standard of review the Court employs, clear error or de novo, the outcome would remain unchanged.”
Davis, 2025 WL 879980, at *2.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Magistrate Judge Reid’s R&R [ECF No. 37] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R [ECF Nos. 43, 44, and 46] are OVERRULED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Order Social Security Administration to File All Secret Evidence into
the Record [ECF No. 26] is DENIED.
4. 	Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Order Social Security Administration to File All Secret
Evidence into the Record [ECF No. 27] is DENIED.
3 	Plaintiff also rehashes the unsupported and conjectural argument that the ALJ (and now,
Magistrate Judge Reid) “concealed” and did not consider a plethora of medical evidence. 	[See, e.g.,
ECF No. 46 at 1–24]. But really what Plaintiff is doing is “essentially requesting the Court reweigh
the evidence presented before the ALJ or substitute the Court’s judgment for that of the ALJ—which
the Court cannot do as the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.” 	Davis,
2025 WL 879980, at *2 (quoting Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178). At bottom, Plaintiff is wrong because
“the ALJ need not consider every item of evidence before her.” Rodriguez obo R.C. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-
22548, 2020 WL 6808814, at *12 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2020) (Becerra, J.) (citing Dyer v. Barnhart, 395
F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005)), report and recommendation adopted in part, 2020 WL 5792596 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 29, 2020), aff’d, 2021 WL 5023951 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2021).
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 6 of 7

7
5. 	Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 33] is GRANTED.
6. 	The ALJ’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
7. 	Pursuant to Rule 58, final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on March 19, 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2026 Page 7 of 7