CHRISTOPHER

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 28; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 28, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. See Report at 17. On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff Andrew Miguel Christopher filed objections to the Report, see Objections to Report and Recommendation Dated July 28, 2022 (Doc. 29; Objections), and on August 17, 2022, Defendant filed a response to the Objections, see Commissioner’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (Doc. 30; Response). Thus, this matter is ripe for review. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that

Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become

11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”). The Court has reviewed the Report, the Objections, the Response, and the relevant record. In the Objections, Christopher merely reiterates the

Sessions-Hamilton on Behalf of K.H. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:19-CV-1155- T-JSS, 2020 WL 13452938, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 9, 2020), a decision issued before Christopher initiated the instant action but notably not included in his Brief before the Magistrate Judge. Objections at 3.

In Sessions-Hamilton, the ALJ’s consideration of prior medical evidence consisted of a summary of the previous ALJ’s discussion of the evidence and portions of two of the records that the previous ALJ relied on. 2020 WL 13452938 at *5. The court found “unlike in Trombetta,”² a case relied on by the Magistrate Judge here, “much of the evidence cited by the prior ALJ was not attached to the record in finding that Claimant was no longer disabled. This limited record does not provide a sufficient basis for the Court to find harmless error.” Id. at *5.

Report at 12. Further, the record contains “summaries of some of the assertedly missing CPD medical evidence and in the comparison section of the decision under review, the ALJ summarizes CPD medical evidence in a manner consistent with some of the assertedly missing CPD medical evidence.” Id. at 14-15. Thus, the court’s holding in Sessions-Hamilton is distinguishable and Christopher’s reliance on it to assert that the Court should overrule the Magistrate Judge’s findings is unavailing. Second, Christopher repeats his argument made before the Magistrate Judge that “[t]he ALJ and disability hearing officer’s finding regarding medical improvement are worded almost exactly the same.” See Objections at 5; see also Brief at 13-14. Having reviewed Christopher’s argument and the Magistrate Judge’s rejection of it, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s determination to be fully supported by the record and applicable authority. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Objections to Report and Recommendation Dated July 28, 2022 (Doc. 22) are OVERRULED. 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Anthony Miguel Christopher and to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 7th day of September, 2022.

United States District Judge

1c28 Copies to: Counsel of Record