PRISCO, JR.
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for remand.
Plaintiff challenged the denial of disability benefits. The Commissioner moved to remand the case for further review, which the Plaintiff did not oppo…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Michael Anthony Prisco, Jr., brings this action challenging Defendant’s denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income payments. (Doc. 1.) Defendant moves the Court to enter judgment and remand the case to the Commissioner for further review. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. (Doc. 21.) 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). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the 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). The fourteen-day deadline for objections to the recommendation has passed. No
party objected. After review, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted for the reasons the Magistrate Judge stated. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff with instructions that the Commissioner’s decision is reversed under sentence for of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s
motion. 4, The Clerk is then directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on November 14, 2022.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)