BROOKHART v. ASTRUE, 2:11-cv-21-FtM-UA-SPC. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120224a26
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell recommending that the decision of the Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplement Security Income benefits be affirmed. 1 Plaintiff has filed an objection to which Defendant has responded. 2 The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record in conjunct
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell recommending that the decision of the Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplement Security Income benefits be affirmed. 1 Plaintiff has filed an objection to which Defendant has responded. 2 The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record in conjuncti..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell recommending that the decision of the Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplement Security Income benefits be affirmed.1 Plaintiff has filed an objection to which Defendant has responded.2 The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record in conjunction with the specific objections3 lodged by Plaintiff to the Report and Recommendation as required by Eleventh Circuit precedent.4 After doing so, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects because Plaintiff's objection has no merit in the face of the record and Defendant's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows:
1) The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Dkt. 27) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order for all purposes, including appellate review.
2) Defendant's decision is affirmed.
3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendant and to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See docket 27.
2. See dockets 28 and 29.
3. The specific objections include (1) the "apparent" conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), (2) the lack of consideration of physical therapist Ms. Stermer-Pfister's evaluation, (3) the failure to consider obesity in combination with other impairments, and (4) the failure to determine that Plaintiff's anxiety and panic disorder were severe.
4. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (stating that "[w]here a proper, specific objection to the magistrate judge's report [and recommendation] is made, it is clear that the district court must conduct a de novo review of that issue.") (citing Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992)).
Source: Leagle
