Graier v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 . The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 9/1/2015. (BCP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CORRETTA DEHAVELIN GRAIER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-2273-MSS-AEP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Complaint (Dkt. 1)
filed by Plaintiff, Corretta Dehavelin Graier, the Response in opposition thereto (Dkt. 13)
filed by Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, and the Joint Memorandum. (Dkt.
16) On August 3, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be
reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings. (Dkt. 17) Defendant has
not filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and the time for doing so has
passed.
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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires

that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection
has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th
Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)).

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., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an
independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Dkt.17) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED
as part of this Order.

2.

The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is hereby REVERSED
and the case is REMANDED with the following instructions:
a. The ALJ shall revisit his conclusion as to whether the evidence
supports the contention that Plaintiff cannot work an eight-hour
workday or 40-hour workweek.
b. The ALJ shall reconsider Dr. Godoy’s opinions and explain the
weight assigned to such opinions.
c. The ALJ shall reconsider Dr. Perez’s opinions and explain the weight
assigned to such opinions.

2

d. The ALJ shall reconsider Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.
e. The ALJ shall reconsider his credibility determinations of Plaintiff’s
testimony and subjective complaints regarding her impairments.
3.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and CLOSE
this case. The Court retains jurisdiction to rule on any motion for attorneys’
fees.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 1st day of September, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Person

3