Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
21
ORDER: United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins' Report and Recommendation 20 , entered on July 10, 2012, is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proc eedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as a "sentence four" remand and thereafter close the file, with each party to bear his own fees and costs. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/1/2012. (CAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHAEL N. STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.
8:11-cv-871-T-33EAJ
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins’ Report
and Recommendation (Doc. # 20), entered on July 10, 2012,
substantially agreeing with the decision of the Commissioner
of
Social
Security
denying
social
security
benefits
but
recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and
this matter remanded for additional fact-finding related to
the Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. As of this date,
neither party has filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such
objections has elapsed.
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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright,
681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983).
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 reviews legal conclusions de
novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston
v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla.
1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge, and
the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins’
Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20), entered on July
10, 2012, is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
2
(2)
The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
(3)
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
enter
final
judgment
in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as a “sentence four”
remand and thereafter close the file, with each party to
bear his own fees and costs.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 1st
day of August, 2012.
Copies to: All 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?