Whaley v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
24
ORDER adopting 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Jennifer L. Whaley. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERS ED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the Commissioner to: a. Fully consider all evidence from Kellee Anderson and resolve and conflicts therein; b. Reevaluate as appropriate th e evidence of Rebecca Marazon, MS, CAS, and Christine Needham, Ed.D.; and c. Make any other determinations consistent with this Order or in the interests of justice. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) in favor of Jennifer Whaley, and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/16/2018. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JENNIFER L. WHALEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:17-cv-324-FtM-38CM
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 23).
Judge Mirando recommends that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and remanded. No party has objected to the Report and
Recommendation, and the period to do so has lapsed. This matter is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright,
681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the absence of specific objections, there is no
requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge
1
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.
reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See CooperHouston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After independently examining the file and on consideration of Judge Mirando’s
findings and recommendation, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this matter is
REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), for the Commissioner to:
a. Fully consider all evidence from Kellee Anderson and resolve and
conflicts therein;
b. Reevaluate as appropriate the evidence of Rebecca Marazon, MS,
CAS, and Christine Needham, Ed.D.; and
c. Make any other determinations consistent with this Order or in the
interests of justice.
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) in favor of Jennifer Whaley, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 16th day of August 2018.
Copies: All Parties of Record
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?