Filed: Sep. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21; Report), entered on August 14, 2017. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint for Judicial Review of a Final Decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration [the Commissioner] (Doc. 1; Complaint) which denied Plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the C
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21; Report), entered on August 14, 2017. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint for Judicial Review of a Final Decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration [the Commissioner] (Doc. 1; Complaint) which denied Plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Co..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21; Report), entered on August 14, 2017. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint for Judicial Review of a Final Decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration [the Commissioner] (Doc. 1; Complaint) which denied Plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Commissioner's Decision Denying Plaintiff's Claim for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance (Doc. 17; Plaintiff's Memorandum), Defendant's Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner's Decision (Doc. 20), and the full record, Judge Richardson recommended that this Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. See Report at 2, 18. On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. See Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 22; Objections). Defendant has not responded to the Objections and the time to do so expired on September 11, 2017. See Rule 72(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)); Rule 6.02(a) of the Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. Nevertheless, based on the Court's review of the Report, the record, and the Objections, the Court has determined that a response is not necessary in this case.1 Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
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 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. S. 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 reviewed the Report and the Objections.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. 22) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) 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) AFFIRMING the Commissioner's final decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
