Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER overruling 25 Plaintiff's Amended Objections; adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment affirming the Commissioner's final decision and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 2/21/2018. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

BEVERLY MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-235-J-34MCR

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22; Report), entered on November 22, 2017. In the
Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the Commissioner of Social
Security’s (the Commissioner’s) decision be affirmed. See Report at 2, 14. Plaintiff filed
Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Request for
Oral Argument (Doc. 23; Objections) on December 6, 2017. Upon review, the Court
struck the Objections as being wholly inadequate and gave counsel an opportunity to
properly file any good faith objections. See Order (Doc. 24). Subsequently, on January
29, 2018, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 25; Amended Objections). The
Commissioner filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 26; Response) on February 6, 2018. As such, the matter is
ripe for the Court’s consideration.

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 fact 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. 2:08-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May
14, 2007).
The Court has reviewed the Report, the Amended Objections, and the Response.1
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Richardson’s
Report, the Court will overrule the Amended 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 Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 25) are
OVERRULED.

1

In the Amended Objections, Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to disability benefits as of July 6,
2016, her 55th birthday. See Amended Objections at 4. However, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
reached the decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits on September 3, 2015. See Report
at 1. In the Report, Judge Richardson concluded that “the Court’s review is limited to determining whether
the ALJ’s findings are based on correct legal standards and supported by substantial evidence,” which is a
legal conclusion. Id. at 8. As stated above, legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. See CooperHouston, 37 F.3d at 604. The Court has the power to enter “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.”
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). However, the Court may not “decide facts anew, reweigh the
evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner.]” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that there is
no case law to support the assertion that the Court has the authority to extend the review of the Court beyond
the decision of the ALJ on September 3, 2015 to Plaintiff’s 55th birthday on July 6, 2016. See Amended
Objections at 3. Upon de novo review, the Court concludes that the authority for review is limited to the
date the ALJ entered the decision, September 3, 2015. See Report at 8.

-2-

2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the Court.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the
Commissioner’s final decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 21st day of February, 2018.

i40
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-