govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-2_24-cv-14395-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
Case No. 2:24-cv-14395-KMM 
 
LIZENA DAVIS,  
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 
 
Defendant. 
                                                                          / 
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Parties’ cross-motions for summary 
judgment.  On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff Lizena Davis ( “Plaintiff”) filed her Motion for 
Summary Judgment.  (ECF No. 12) (“Plaintiff’s Motion” or “Pltff.’s Mot.”).  On July 10, 
2025, Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ( “Defendant”) filed its Motion for 
Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff ’s Motion for Summary Judgment w ith 
Supporting Memorandum of Law.  (ECF No. 16) (“Defendant’s Motion” or “Def.’s Mot.”).  
Plaintiff responded to Defendant ’s Motion on July 24, 2025.  (ECF No. 18) ( “Plaintiff’s 
Response”).  This Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid “to take all 
necessary and proper action as required by law regarding all pr e-trial, non- dispositive 
matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters.”  (ECF No. 8).  
Magistrate Judge Reid issu ed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that 
Defendant’s Motion be granted, Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, and the Administrate Law 
Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision below be affirmed.  (ECF No. 19) ( “R&R”).  Plaintiff filed her 
Objections to the R&R on January 20, 2026.  (ECF No. 20) ( “Obj.”).  As set forth below, 
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 1 of 8
2 
 
the C ourt ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Reid ’s R&R, GRANTS Defendant’s Motion, 
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion, and AFFIRMS the ALJ’s decision. 
I. BACKGROUND 
The Court presumes the Parties’ familiarity with the factual record, as detailed at 
length in the R&R.  R&R at 4–16.  The Court will provide a brief summary of this case ’s 
procedural history, as is most relevant to the disposition of the instant Motions.   
Plaintiff filed her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on February 
15, 2022, alleging an onset of disability on October 1 0, 2021.  R. 206.1  Plaintiff’s claim 
was denied on April 25, 2022, and then again upon reconsideration June 20, 2023.  R. 109–
17.  Eventually, following a hearing, ALJ Valencia Jarvis issued an unfavorable decision 
on March 25, 2024.  R. 14–32.  The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the residual functiona l 
capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work, with the following limitations: occasionally 
lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds ; frequently lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds; 
standing/walking for four hours in an 8- hour day; sitting for six hours in an 8- hour day; 
using a handheld de vice to assist  with ambulation; occas ional balancing, stooping, 
kneeling, crouching, crawling, climbing up stairs or ramps, but never climbing ladders , 
ropes, or scaffolds; and occasionally being e xposed to extreme cold  or hea t, and t o 
unprotected heights.  R. 24.   
The Appeals Council then denied P laintiff’s request for review on November 1, 
2024.  R. 1–3.  A n appeal of the  Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for 
DIB benefits followed, as she filed her Complaint in  this Court on Dece mber 13, 2024.  
(ECF No. 1).   
 
1 All references to “R. #” are to pages of the transcript of the administrative record, which has been 
filed on the docket at (ECF No. 4). 
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 2 of 8
3 
 
Plaintiff eventually moved for summary judgment, raising just one argument as to 
why this case should be rema nded:  the AL J’s RFC is incomplete  and unsupported by 
substantial evidence as it does not incorporate  or expressly reject  limitations from the 
opinion of Dr. Sterling Haws, a consultative exa miner.  See generally Pltff.’s Mot.  Now 
before the Court is Magistrate Judge Reid’s R&R, recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s 
Motion, grant Defendant’s Motion, and affirm the ALJ’s decision.  See generally R&R. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
A. Report and Recommendations 
The Court 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 
72(b)(3).  The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition 
that has been properly objected to.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).  A de novo review is therefore 
required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the 
report.  Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).  “It is critical that 
the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant 
de novo review.  Id. 
Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate 
judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”  See Keaton v. United States , No. 
14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. 
Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating 
that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly 
erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 3 of 8
4 
 
2000))).  A party’s objections are improper if they expand upon and reframe arguments 
already made and considered by the magistrate judge, or simply disagree with the 
magistrate judge’s conclusions.  See Melillo v. United States, No. 17-cv-80489, 2018 WL 
4258355, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2018); see also  Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10- cv-
23641, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. 
Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)) (“It is 
improper for an objecting party to . . . submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing 
more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers 
submitted to the Magistrate Judge.  Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at 
the apple’ when they file objections to a R & R.”).   
B. Reviewing ALJ’s Determinations 
Judicial review of an ALJ’s final decision is limited to whether the ALJ’s 
“conclusion, as a whole, was supported by substantial evidence in the record.”  Dye r v. 
Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Foote v. Chater , 67 F.3d 1553, 
1558 (11th Cir. 1995) ).  “Substantial evidence is something ‘more than a mere scintilla, 
but less than a preponderance.’”  Id. (quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th 
Cir.1987) (internal quotation and citation omitted)).  “If the Commissioner’s decision is 
supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates 
against it.”  Id. (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004)).  
“[T]here is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence 
in his decision, so long as the ALJ’s decision . . . is not a broad rejection which is not 
enough to enable [a reviewing court] to conclude that the ALJ considered [the claimant’s] 
medical condition as a whole.”  Mitchell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th 
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 4 of 8
5 
 
Cir. 2014) (citing Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211).  However, while “[a]n ALJ is not required to 
refer specifically to each piece of evidence in the record, [the ALJ] must sufficiently 
explain the weight given to ‘obviously probative exhibits.’”  Cooper  v. Comm’r of Soc. 
Sec., 521 F. App’x 803, 808 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 
735 (11th Cir. 1981)). 
III. DISCUSSION 
Magistrate Judge Reid recommends denying Plaintiff ’s Motion and granting 
Defendant’s Motion because: there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the 
ALJ’s findings that Plaintiff ’s medically det erminable impairments did not render her 
disabled and the ALJ’s decision reflects that she considered Dr. Haws’  recommendation 
that Plaintiff requires human assistance during ambulation,2 before ultimately declining to 
adopt it based on inconsistencies with the broader medical record.  R&R at 17–20.  In her 
Objections to the R&R, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Reid was mistaken to find 
that the ALJ properly accounted for Dr. Haws’ medical opinion, and also mistaken to find 
that the ALJ was not required to explicitly reject this portion of Dr. Haws ’ opinion.  Obj. 
at 1–2.  She also argues that Magistrate Judge Reid is relying on post-hoc rationalizations 
in finding that the ALJ ’s findings regarding Plaintiff’s mental imp airments adequately 
support her “omission of the human guidance opinion.”  Id. at 2–3.   
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Plaintiff’ s objections each reflect 
arguments raised in her Motion and her Response to Defendant’s Motion.  See Pltff.’s Mot. 
at 3 –7 (arguin g ALJ erred by failing to properly account for Dr. Haws ’ opinion); id. 
 
2 In relevant part , Dr. Haws ’ recommendation regarding Plaintiff ’s need for human assistance 
during ambulation was as follows: “ The claim ant will require assistance and guidance during 
ambulation to ensure she did not become disoriented and become a danger to herself or to others.”  
R. 1012.   
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 5 of 8
6 
 
(arguing ALJ failed by not specifically “build[ing] an accurate and logical bridge from ” 
Dr. Haws’ medical opinion to her eventual decision to not include human guidance as part 
of Plaintiff’s RFC); Plaintiff’s Response at 3–4 (“The ALJ never discounted Plaintiff ’s 
need for assistance while ambulating, and Defendant’s arguments claiming otherwise were 
clearly a post-hoc rationalization rather than based on discussions actually present in the 
ALJ’s decision.”).  As the Court noted, it is impr oper for Plaintiff to submit objections to 
this Court “which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions 
taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. ”  Marlite, Inc., 2012 WL 
3614212, at *5 (quoting Camardo, 806 F. Supp at 382).  However, only proper objections 
trigger district courts ’ obligation to review a n R&R de nov o.  See Keaton, 2015 WL 
12780912, at *1.  As such, the Court next goes through Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings 
and reviews them for clear error. 
Magistrate Judge Reid finds that the ALJ considered Dr. Haws ’ recommendation 
that Plaintiff requires human a ssistance during ambulation, and re asonably decli ned to 
follow it b ecause of inconsistencies with the b roader medical record.  R&R at 18.  
Magistrate Judge Reid finds that Plaintiff ’s treatment notes indicate she was independent 
in bathing, dressing, toileting, feeding, and medication management, which is contrary to 
Plaintiff’s own testimony.  Id.  Further, she finds that the ALJ explicit ly addressed the 
extent to which Plaintiff ’s cognitive issues were linked with her gait instability , and that 
the ALJ reasonably conclu ded—based off Plaintiff’s psychiatrist and other doctors who 
examined her —that Plaintiff ’s mental impairments “ did not contribute to her ph ysical 
symptoms or gait instability. ”  Id. at 19.  Magistrate Judge Reid also finds that the ALJ 
found Dr. Haws’ opinion persuasive as to Plaintiff’s need for assistance or guidance to 
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 6 of 8
7 
 
ambulate, and that this was consistent with another doctor who opined Plaintiff required 
handheld assistance, as opposed to human guidance, for ambulation.  Id.  Further, she notes 
that the ALJ found that Dr. Haws’ opinion regarding Plaintiff’s cognitive impairments was 
unpersuasive.  Id. at 19–20 (noting that AL J stated , regarding D r. Haws ’ opinion that 
Plaintiff has disorientation and cognitive decline: “[H]e largely based this opinion on the 
claimant’s subjective reports and did not perform a formal mental status exam or other 
cognitive testing”).  The Court finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge Reid ’s findings 
and agrees that the AL J had and articulated  substantial evidence for her find ings that 
justified not adopting Dr. Haws’ opinion. 
Magistrate Judge Reid also finds that the ALJ was not required to “explicitly reject” 
Dr. Haws’ opinion that Plaintiff needed human assistance to ambulate.  Id. at 20.  She finds 
that this omission does not  override the aforementioned record evidence, which the ALJ 
pointed to, or the fact that the A LJ “properly articulated the reasons for discounting Dr. 
Haws’ opinion that Plaintiff’s need for guidance or assistance while ambulating was due 
to cognitive issues. ”  Id.   The Court  finds no clear  error with Magistrate Judge Rei d’s 
findings, and agrees that Dr. Haws ’ recommendation of human assistance is tied to his 
finding that Plaintiff ’s ambulatory limitations are cognitive,  so the ALJ ’s extensive 
discounting of Dr. Haws’ opinions regarding Plaintiff’s cognitive limitations are sufficient 
to meet the substantial evidence standard. 
Finally, Magis trate Judge Reid finds the ALJ  clearly explained  why she found 
another doctor and Plaintiff ’s psychiatri st’s findings to be more persuasive regarding 
Plaintiff’s cognitive abilities than Dr. Haws ’ opinion regarding the same.  Therefore, 
Magistrate Judge Reid finds there is sufficient evidence to find “ that the ALJ properly 
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 7 of 8
8 
 
considered the combined impact of Plaintiff’s limitations in the ultimate RFC 
determination.”  Id.  The Court finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings.  
Therefore, the Court adopts Magistrate Reid’s recommendation that the ALJ’s decision be 
affirmed. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motions, the pertinent portions of 
the record, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 
ADJUDGED that: 
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; 
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is 
GRANTED; 
3. The ALJ’s Decision is AFFIRMED; 
4. Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is 
ADOPTED; 
5. The case is now CLOSED. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of February, 
2026.   
 
K. MICHAEL MOORE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
c: All counsel of record 
 
 
17th
Case 2:24-cv-14395-KMM   Document 21   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026   Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight