Filed: Sep. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (Doc. # 19), filed on August 26, 2013, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits be reversed and remanded. On September 3, 2013, this Court entered an Order adjusting the deadline for the Commissioner to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Do
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (Doc. # 19), filed on August 26, 2013, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits be reversed and remanded. On September 3, 2013, this Court entered an Order adjusting the deadline for the Commissioner to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc..
More
ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (Doc. # 19), filed on August 26, 2013, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits be reversed and remanded.
On September 3, 2013, this Court entered an Order adjusting the deadline for the Commissioner to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 20). If the Commissioner was to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, she was required to do so by September 9, 2013. (Id.). As of this date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed, and the time to do so has now passed. After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Hous. v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, and adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation of Thomas B. McCoun III, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 19) is ADOPTED.
(2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits is REVERSED AND REMANDED.
(3) The Clerk is directed to enter a Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff reflecting that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is reversed and remanded. Thereafter, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THE CASE.
DONE and ORDERED.
