SONOGA
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 granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion to reverse and remand the decision.
Plaintiff sought to appeal an unfavorable decision from a Social Security administrative law judge on remand. The Commissioner moved to reverse and re…
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 42 U.S.C. § 405(G) Sentence Four Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
Tracy A. Sonoga seeks to appeal the unfavorable decision of a Social Security administrative law judge on remand from an earlier successful appeal. See Sonoga v. Kijakazi (Sonoga I), No. 8:21-cv-549-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2021) (Porcelli, M.J.) (Doc. 12) (reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding for further administrative proceedings); Sonoga v. O'Malley(Sonoga II), No. 8:23-cv-2257 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2023) (Doc. 1) (appealing the new decision after remand). The Commissioner moves to reverse and remand for further consideration and administrative action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See (Doc. 24). Sonoga does not oppose. Id. at 1.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that I grant the Commissioner's motion. See R&R (Doc. 25). Given that the motion is unopposed, and after considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants the motion.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a 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 court 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); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
In the light of the Parties' agreement as to the requested relief, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Commissioner's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.
2. The Commissioner decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff, and to CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 6, 2024.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)