STARKE v. COLVIN
ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by William Terrell Hodges on 3/6/17. The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits,is affirmed. The Clerk is directed to close the file. (tss)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:15-cv-00228-WTH-GRJ
CAROLYN W COLVIN,
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated November 21, 2016. (ECF No. 22). The parties have been
furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an
opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section
636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at ECF No. 23. I have made a de novo review
based on those objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed
objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be
adopted. First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that because the
Administrative Law Judge found no disability for the period between June 2008 and
October 2012, no medical expert was required under SSR 83-20 to determine if the
onset date might have been earlier than the first recorded medical exam. Second, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Administrative Law Judge gave full and
Page 2 of 2
specific reasons for discounting the credibility of the plaintiff regarding the severity of
KBJ’s limitations. Finally, the Court agrees that the Administrative Law Judge properly
considered and explained the impact of the two Batelle Developmental Inventory tests
in his analysis. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits,
is affirmed. The Clerk is directed to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida this 6th day of March, 2017.
Case No: 1:15‐cv‐00228‐WTH‐GRJ
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?