Rainey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/28/2024. (RAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MELODY RAINEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:23-cv-931-VMC-SPF

COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn’s Report and
Recommendation

(Doc.

#

20),

entered

on

August

1,

2024,

recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying benefits be affirmed.
On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 21). The Commissioner did
not file a response to the objection.
The

Court

Recommendation,

accepts
overrules

and
the

adopts
objection,

the
and

Report

and

affirms

the

Commissioner’s decision.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
1

reject

or

modify

recommendation.

28

the

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge’s

636(b)(1);

report

and

Williams

v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files a
timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the
magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo
review

with

respect

to

that

factual

issue.

Stokes

v.

Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district
judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. 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).
Ms. Rainey’s objection presents two arguments. First,
the ALJ failed to “properly evaluate the medical opinion
evidence” by “rejecting the limitations described . . . by
treating physician Dr. Roetzheim and those from the Agency’s
own examining physician, Dr. Syed.” (Doc. # 21 at 1). Second,

2

the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Ms. Rainey’s testimony
regarding her pain. (Id. at 6-7).
The Court is unpersuaded by these arguments. Rather, the
Court agrees with Judge Flynn’s analysis rejecting these
arguments. First, “[t]he ALJ reviewed Plaintiff’s medical
records

.

.

administrative

.

and

found

findings

the

more

state

agency

persuasive

in

physicians’
formulating

Plaintiff’s RFC for light work with limitations.” (Doc. # 20
at 17). Second, “substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
evaluation of Plaintiff’s allegations of subjective pain.”
(Id. at 21).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge
Flynn’s Report and Recommendation as well as the objection
thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the
Report

and

Recommendation.

The

Court

agrees

with

Judge

Flynn’s well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of
law. The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the
issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis
for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20) is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED.
3

(2)

The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
AFFIRMED.

(3)

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and,
thereafter, CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

28th day of August, 2024.

4