GALLON
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 grants the Defendant's unopposed motion to remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security.
The Plaintiff sued the Commissioner of Social Security. The Defendant filed an unopposed motion to remand the case. A Magistrate Judge recommended gra…
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 De Novo Review Of Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner of Social Security. (Dkt. 16) On April 2, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 17), which recommended Defendant's Motion be granted. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner of Social Security.
In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
1
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F. 2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent 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 recommendations. 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. Southern Ry., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 17), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.
2. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner of Social Security, (Dkt. 16), is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Plaintiff and the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further administrative
2
proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Motion.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and terminate any pending motions.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd day of April 2024.
MARY S SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person
3
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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Ga. Power Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)