Filed: Feb. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 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. 22; Report), entered on November 22, 2017. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Commissioner of Social Security's (the Commissioner's) decision be affirmed. See Report at 2, 14. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 23; Objectio
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22; Report), entered on November 22, 2017. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Commissioner of Social Security's (the Commissioner's) decision be affirmed. See Report at 2, 14. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 23; Objection..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22; Report), entered on November 22, 2017. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Commissioner of Social Security's (the Commissioner's) decision be affirmed. See Report at 2, 14. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 23; Objections) on December 6, 2017. Upon review, the Court struck the Objections as being wholly inadequate and gave counsel an opportunity to properly file any good faith objections. See Order (Doc. 24). Subsequently, on January 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 25; Amended Objections). The Commissioner filed a Response to Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26; Response) on February 6, 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 fact 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. 2:08-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
The Court has reviewed the Report, the Amended Objections, and the Response.1 Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Richardson's Report, the Court will overrule the Amended 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 Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 25) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the Commissioner's final decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
