Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
27
ORDER overruling 25 Plaintiff's Objections; adopting 24 Report and Recommendation; directing the Clerk of the Court is enter judgment affirming the Commissioner's final decision and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/27/2018. (JW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
HOPE LEANN MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:17-cv-673-J-34PDB
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24;
Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge,
on August 15, 2018. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Barksdale recommends that the
Commissioner of Social Security’s (the Commissioner) decision that Plaintiff was not
disabled be affirmed. See Report at 28. On August 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to
the
Report.
See Plaintiff’s
Objections
to
Magistrate
Judge’s
Report
and
Recommendation (Doc. 25; Objections). The Commissioner then filed a response to the
Objections on September 10, 2018. See Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26; Response to
Objections). 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 Objections, and the Response to
Objections. In the Objections, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in: (1)
“fail[ing] to find that the Commissioner erred in failing to address or analyze Ms. Miller’s
diagnosis of borderline personality disorder,” (2) “fail[ing] to find that the Commissioner
erred in failing to reconcile the state agency consultants’ opinions with the Commissioner’s
residual functional capacity assessment,” and (3) “fail[ing] to find that the Commissioner
did not articulate good cause for rejecting the treating psychiatrist’s opinion as to
functioning.” Objections at 1, 4, 5. Plaintiff’s arguments in the Objections simply mirror
those raised in her original memorandum before the Magistrate Judge with no further
elaboration.
See Plaintiff’s Brief (Doc. 20) at 14-25.
Although Plaintiff generally
disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, she has failed to identify any factual or
legal error in the Report. Instead, she states as to each issue that she “specifically objects
to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and law” for the express purpose of preserving
this issue for appeal.
Objections at 1, 4, 5.
Then, rather than address any of the
Magistrate Judge’s factual or legal determinations, Plaintiff simply repeats the arguments
she presented to the Magistrate Judge.
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Barksdale’s
Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual
conclusions recommended by Judge Barksdale. Accordingly, it is hereby
-2-
ORDERED:
1. The objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 25) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) 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) and § 1383(c)(3) AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s final
decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 27th day of September, 2018.
LC25
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
-3-
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?