Filed: Jul. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 23, 2015. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Alfred Hines, Jr.'s application for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits be affirmed. See Report at 5. On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. No. 21; Ob
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 23, 2015. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Alfred Hines, Jr.'s application for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits be affirmed. See Report at 5. On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. No. 21; Obj..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 23, 2015. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Alfred Hines, Jr.'s application for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits be affirmed. See Report at 5. On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. No. 21; Objections) to the Magistrate Judge's Report. See Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ("Commissioner"), filed a response (Doc. No. 22; Response) to the Objections on March 20, 2015. See Commissioner's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Thus, the matter is ripe for review.1
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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Toomey's Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.2
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
2. The request for oral argument set forth in Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 21) are OVERRULED.
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
