Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER overruling 22 Plaintiff's Objections; adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/15/2017. (JW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 3:16-cv-980-J-34MCR
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21; Report), entered on August 14, 2017. Upon
consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Judicial Review of a Final Decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration [the Commissioner] (Doc. 1;
Complaint) which denied Plaintiff’s claims for disability insurance benefits, Plaintiff’s
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Commissioner’s Decision Denying Plaintiff’s
Claim for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance (Doc. 17; Plaintiff’s Memorandum),
Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner’s Decision (Doc. 20), and the
full record, Judge Richardson recommended that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s
decision. See Report at 2, 18. On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report. See Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 22; Objections). Defendant has not responded to
the Objections and the time to do so expired on September 11, 2017. See Rule 72(b)(2),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)); Rule 6.02(a) of the Local Rules, United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida. Nevertheless, based on the Court’s review of the
Report, the record, and the Objections, the Court has determined that a response is not
necessary in this case.1 Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
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. S. 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).
The Court has reviewed the Report and the Objections.2 Upon independent review
of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Richardson’s Report, the Court will overrule
The Court recognizes that the failure to respond may be related to Hurricane Irma which hit Florida
on September 9 through September 11, 2017, and resulted in the closure of this Courthouse on September
8, 10, and 11, 2017. Because this Court’s review discloses that the Objections are due to be overrruled,
the Court will not require a response.
Although Plaintiff objected to the Report, he does not refer to any specific legal or factual finding that
he believes to be error. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate determination that his
disability ended on November 20, 2012 was not supported by substantial evidence, and generally directs
the Court to his previously filed Plaintiff’s Memorandum. See Objections at 1. Such generalized objections
are entirely insufficient to warrant specific de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings.
See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d
1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must
specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be
considered by the district court.”); see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Indeed, Plaintiff must identify those portions of the factual findings in the
Report of which he requests this Court’s specific consideration. Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1361. “This rule
facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces
a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Id. (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d
404, 410 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), overruled on other grounds, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)). In the Objections, Plaintiff simply disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
ultimate conclusion rather than presents a specific objection to a factual finding in the Report. As such, the
Court finds that Plaintiff would not be entitled to a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings.
Nevertheless, the undersigned concludes the Magistrate Judge’s findings are fully supported by the record.
the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by
Judge Richardson. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 22) are
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the Court.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s final decision and close
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 15th day of September, 2017.
Counsel of Record
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?