Filed: Jul. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15; Report), entered on May 12, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Johnny Paraday's application for disability and disability insurance benefits. See Report at 2. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, in which
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15; Report), entered on May 12, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Johnny Paraday's application for disability and disability insurance benefits. See Report at 2. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, in which ..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15; Report), entered on May 12, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff Johnny Paraday's application for disability and disability insurance benefits. See Report at 2. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, in which he requests de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's decision and oral argument. See Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. No. 16; Objections). Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ("Commissioner"), filed a response to the Objections on July 2, 2015 (Doc. No. 18; Response). Accordingly, the matter is ripe for review.1
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. Southern 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).
In the Objections, Plaintiff simply re-asserts the arguments he presented to the Magistrate Judge in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Commissioner's Decision Denying Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits (Doc. No. 13; Plaintiff's Memorandum). Indeed, with the exception of the first numbered paragraph, the content of the Objections is almost entirely copied verbatim from Plaintiff's Memorandum. The Magistrate Judge addressed each of these arguments comprehensively in the Report. Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings, he fails to identify any factual or legal errors in the analysis, and the Court finds none.2
Upon independent review of the Report, the Court will overrule the Objections and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The request for oral argument set forth in Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) are OVERRULED.
3. Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15) is ADOPTED, as the opinion of the Court.
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
