HINOJOS v. ASTRUE, 2:11-cv-102-FtM-UA SPC. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120613968
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 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 Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits be affirmed. 1 Plaintiff has filed an objection. 2 The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record in conjunction with the specific objections lodged by Plaintiff to the Report and Reco
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 Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits be affirmed. 1 Plaintiff has filed an objection. 2 The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record in conjunction with the specific objections lodged by Plaintiff to the Report and Recom..
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 Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits be affirmed.1 Plaintiff has filed an objection.2 The Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record in conjunction with the specific objections lodged by Plaintiff to the Report and Recommendation — that the magistrate judge improperly upheld the administrative law judge's decision which (1) was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, (2) gave little weight to the opinions of Drs. Smart and Cvik, (3) misunderstood the physical source of Plaintiff's lack of concentration, (4) erroneously applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to non-exertional limitations as opposed to considering vocational expert, and (5) found that Plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful activity in 2009 after the alleged onset of his disability — as required by Eleventh Circuit precedent.3 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 objections have 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. 24) 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 24.
2. See docket 25.
3. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.App'x 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 the issue.") (citing Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992)).
Source: Leagle
