Filed: Jun. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . In this social security appeal, Plaintiff Alexander Ortiz Montes (" Montes ") seeks review of the Commissioner's decision to deny him social security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) In support, Plaintiff lobs several objections to the Administrative Law Judge's (" ALJ ") unfavorable decision from June 16, 2016 to deny his benefits, including: (1) an erroneous conclusion that the he has residential functional capacity to perform sedentary work; (2)
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . In this social security appeal, Plaintiff Alexander Ortiz Montes (" Montes ") seeks review of the Commissioner's decision to deny him social security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) In support, Plaintiff lobs several objections to the Administrative Law Judge's (" ALJ ") unfavorable decision from June 16, 2016 to deny his benefits, including: (1) an erroneous conclusion that the he has residential functional capacity to perform sedentary work; (2) ..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, JR., District Judge.
In this social security appeal, Plaintiff Alexander Ortiz Montes ("Montes") seeks review of the Commissioner's decision to deny him social security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) In support, Plaintiff lobs several objections to the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") unfavorable decision from June 16, 2016 to deny his benefits, including: (1) an erroneous conclusion that the he has residential functional capacity to perform sedentary work; (2) inaccurate findings regarding the vocational expert's testimony; and (3) the lack of substantial evidence to support the credibility determination. (See Doc. 25, pp. 17-30.)
On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. (Doc. 26 ("R&R").) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Smith disagrees with Montes's contentions, finding that that the Commissioner's decision was made pursuant to the correct legal standard with substantial supporting evidence. (Id. at 13.)
The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed. Absent objections, the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see also Marcort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding no clear error, the Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
2. The Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Alexander Ortiz Montes and to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.
