Hoaglan v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's procedurally defective Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16 ) is DENI ED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to enter a Judgment in favor of the Commissioner reflecting that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is affirmed. Thereafter, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/22/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARLO HOAGLAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

8:16-cv-2311-T-33CM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando’s Report and
Recommendation

(Doc.

#

22),

filed

on

August

7,

2017,

recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying Social Security benefits be affirmed.

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.

As discussed below, the Court adopts

the Report and Recommendation.
Discussion
The

Magistrate

Judge

issued

a

Scheduling

Order

on

December 20, 2016, directing Plaintiff to file a memorandum of
law in support of the allegations of the Complaint within 60
days

and

further

directing

the

Commissioner

to

file

a

memorandum of law within 60 days of the filing of Plaintiff’s

memorandum of law. (Doc. # 15). The Scheduling Order did not
contemplate

the

filing

of

separate

Motions

for

Summary

Judgment. Nevertheless, on February 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16) and separate Brief
in

Support

thereof.

(Doc.

#

17).

Therein,

Plaintiff

identified two specific issues that she contends warrant
reversal of the ALJ’s decision: (1) whether the ALJ erred in
relying on the testimony of a Vocational Expert that there are
significant jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform; and (2) whether the ALJ complied with Social Security
Ruling 00-4p.

On February 28, 2017, the Commissioner filed a

Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner’s Decision. (Doc. #
18).
The Magistrate Judge carefully considered the arguments
presented and issued a detailed Report and Recommendation on
August 7, 2017, recommending that this Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits to Plaintiff. (Doc.
# 22).

Regardless of the procedurally defective manner in

which Plaintiff raised her arguments, the Magistrate Judge
squarely and completely addressed each issue Plaintiff raised.
As noted, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an
Objection to the Report and Recommendation, but she elected
not to do so.
2

After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

recommendation.

the
28

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge’s

636(b)(1);

report
Williams

and
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 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
3

(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.

(2)

The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying benefits is AFFIRMED.

(3)

Plaintiff’s procedurally defective Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.

(4)

The Clerk is directed to enter a Judgment in favor of the
Commissioner reflecting that the Commissioner’s decision
denying benefits is affirmed.

Thereafter, the Clerk is

directed to CLOSE THE CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
22nd day of August, 2017.

4