PRENDES v. COLVIN, 1:15-cv-00171-MP-GRJ. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160921859
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER MARK E. WALKER , District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated August 23, 2016. ECF No. 16. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections on ECF No. 17. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report and R
Summary: ORDER MARK E. WALKER , District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated August 23, 2016. ECF No. 16. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections on ECF No. 17. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report and Re..
More
ORDER
MARK E. WALKER, District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated August 23, 2016. ECF No. 16. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections on ECF No. 17. I have made a de novo review based on those objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Plaintiff argues that his chronic pain prohibits him from "perform[ing] most highly skilled of all bench work in a dental lab." ECF No. 17 at 2. However, the Magistrate Judge's report in no way suggests that the Administrative Law Judge required Plaintiff to perform a specific type of work. Instead, the finding is that Plaintiff has the ability to perform some work. Therefore, the Commissioner's determination that Plaintiff is not disabled is correct.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
3. The clerk is directed to close the file.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
