MILLAN
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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the unopposed motion for judgment, reversing and remanding the case for further evaluation of benefits.
Plaintiff sought review of a Social Security Administration decision. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting an unopposed motion to reverse and rem…
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. § 406(b) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 29, 2021. In the Report, Judge Klindt recommends that the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (Dkt. No. 19) be granted and the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close the case. See Report at 2. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. The Court Amay accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon independent review of the Magistrate Judge=s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. The Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Reversal and
Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment REVERSING AND REMANDING this case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) with the following instructions: The Commissioner
shall further evaluate whether medical improvement occurred by
comparing the medical evidence from the comparison point decision with the medical evidence currently in the file in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.994 and issue a new decision. 4. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close the file. 5. In the event benefits are awarded on remand, any § 406(b) fee application shall be filed within the parameters set forth by the Order entered in Case No. 6:12-mc-124-ACC (In Re: Procedures for Applying for Attorney’s Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)). DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 18th day of May, 2021.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
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)
- Hoffman v. Ariz. Beverages USA, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)