FEASTER
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings.
Plaintiff sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of benefits. A United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendati…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Social Security Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 14), entered on January 9, 2025, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
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.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
1
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). 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).
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.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
(2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further consideration as discussed in the Report and Recommendation.
2
(3) Should this remand result in the award of benefits, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s attorney is GRANTED an extension of time in which to file a petition for authorization of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Plaintiff’s attorney shall file such a petition within thirty (30) days from the date of the Commissioner’s letter sent to Plaintiff’s counsel of record at the conclusion of the Agency’s past due benefit calculation stating the amount withheld for attorney’s fees. See In re: Procedures for Applying for Attorney’s Fees Under 42 U.S.C. §§406(b) & 1383(d)(2), Case No. 6:12-mc-124-Orl-22 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2012). This Order does not extend the time limits for filing a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
(4) 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 January, 2025.
3
4
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)