Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Adopting 28 Report and Recommendation. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 11/21/2017. (hmo) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 16-21906-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
PAULETTE MAUREEN ROGERS,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 28]. Plaintiff appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Social Security disability benefits. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff
argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erroneously determined that she is not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. [See id.]. The matter was referred to Judge Turnoff,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for
a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 4]. On January 11, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24]. Defendant filed a competing Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] in February 2017. Judge Turnoff concluded that the
ALJ’s decision did not offer sufficient explanation on how the ALJ weighed competing medical
opinion evidence for the Court to evaluate whether the ALJ applied the correct legal analysis.
[ECF No. 28, at 16]. Thus, Judge Turnoff recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion, deny Defendant’s Motion, and remand to the ALJ for further proceedings. [Id. at 20]. Neither party
has timely objected to the Report.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection
is made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the
party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection
is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters,
L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x
781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
This Court finds no clear error with Judge Turnoff’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees
that Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted, Defendant’s Motion should be denied, and the matter
should be remanded to the ALJ for additional proceedings.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Judge Turnoff’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED;
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is DENIED;
the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this Order and the
this case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of November, 2017.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?