Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/10/2025. (MG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JASPER MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:23-cv-02286-VMC-AEP

LELAND DUDEK,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, 1
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. # 17), entered on February 10, 2025,
recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying benefits be affirmed. On February 21, 2025,
Plaintiff filed Objections to the United States Magistrate
Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation.

(Doc.

#

18).

The

Commissioner did not file a response to the Objections.
Upon review, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and
Recommendation, overrules the Objections, and affirms the
Commissioner’s decision.

Leland Dudek
Security.
1

is

now

the

Acting

1

Commissioner

of

Social

Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
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).
Plaintiff raises three objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. # 18). First, Plaintiff contends that
Judge Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation conflicts with the
2

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) requirement to discuss
mild mental limitations in the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) assessment. (Id. at 1-2). Second, Plaintiff argues
that the Report and Recommendation conflicts with the ALJ’s
obligation to explain the weight given to State agency medical
consultants.

(Id.

at

2-3).

Third,

that

the

Report

and

Recommendation misstates the record regarding Plaintiff’s
arguments about the vocational expert’s (“VE”) testimony.
(Id. at 3-5).
The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments, and
instead agrees with Judge Porcelli’s analysis. First, “the
ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s mental RFC is supported by
substantial evidence,” as “the ALJ took both Plaintiff’s
severe

and

non-severe

impairments

into

account

when

formulating Plaintiff’s RFC.” (Doc. # 17 at 11-12). Second,
“[t]he ALJ properly considered the opinion evidence of the
State agency consultants and formulated an RFC that was
supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at 9). Third, the
Report and Recommendation explains that Plaintiff’s argument
regarding

the

VE’s

including

that

testimony

“Plaintiff

fails
never

for

several

challenged

reasons,
the

VE’s

qualifications at the administrative hearing, did not move to
strike the opinions after learning that the VE was relying on
3

JobBrowser Pro, and failed to offer the ALJ any evidence to
rebut the VE’s testimony.” (Id. at 16).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge
Porcelli’s

Report

and

Recommendation,

as

well

as

the

Objections thereto, the Court overrules the Objections and
adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with
Judge

Porcelli’s

well-reasoned

findings

of

conclusions

of

law.

The

Report

and

thoughtfully

addresses

the

issues

presented,

fact

and

Recommendation
and

the

Objections do not provide a basis for rejecting the Report
and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17) 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.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

10th day of March, 2025.

4