Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jack v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:14-cv-723-FtM-38MRM. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160224a69 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2016
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28) filed on December 30, 2015. Judge McCoy recommends that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Plaintiff filed Written Objections to the Court's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #29) on January 12, 2016, to which the Commiss
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28) filed on December 30, 2015. Judge McCoy recommends that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff filed Written Objections to the Court's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #29) on January 12, 2016, to which the Commissioner elected not to respond. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon consideration of Judge McCoy's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28) over Plaintiff's objections.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED in part for the Commissioner to reconsider Plaintiff's impairments to determine if he has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe, and to continue in the sequential evaluation, if appropriate. As to the remaining issues raised, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer