Filed: Jul. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23; Report), entered on May 29, 2018. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) be affirmed. See Report at 2, 7. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argu
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23; Report), entered on May 29, 2018. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) be affirmed. See Report at 2, 7. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argum..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23; Report), entered on May 29, 2018. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) be affirmed. See Report at 2, 7. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 24; Objections) on June 13, 2018. The Commissioner then filed Commissioner's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25; Response) on June 19, 2018. As such, the matter is ripe for the Court's consideration.
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). 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 (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).
The Court has considered the Report, Objections,1 and Response.2 Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Richardson's Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by Judge Richardson. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The objections set forth in Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 24) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) AFFIRMING the Commissioner's final decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.