Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 22). Judge Richardson recommends that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). The parties have not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has elapsed. This matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful a
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 22). Judge Richardson recommends that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). The parties have not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has elapsed. This matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful an..
More
OPINION AND ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 22). Judge Richardson recommends that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties have not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has elapsed. 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). Absent 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 absent an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After independently examining the file and on consideration of Judge Richardson's findings and recommendation, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
(2) The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for rehearing under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with instructions to the Administrative Law Judge:
a. to reconsider and resolve any apparent conflicts between the Dictionary of Occupational Title and vocational expert's testimony with respect to jobs available in the nation economy that Plaintiff can perform, and, if necessary, to further develop the record;
b. to reevaluate whether Plaintiff's asthma and neuropathy impairments should be considered and reevaluate Plaintiff's residual functional capacity assessment, if necessary;
c. to reevaluate Plaintiff's alleged onset date; and
d. conduct any further proceedings deemed appropriate.
(3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close this case.
(4) If benefits are awarded on remand, any § 406(b) or § 1382(d)(2) fee application should be filed within the parameters set forth in the Order entered in In re: Procedures for Applying for Attorney's Fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 406(b) & 1383(d)(2), Case No.: 6:12-mc-124-Orl-22 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2012). The Court's Order on this Report and Recommendation should not be interpreted as extending the time limits for filing a motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
DONE and ORDERED.
