GUDYNOWSKI
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 accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff sued the Commissioner of Social Security. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on the Defendant's motion for entry of jud…
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
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 26) on Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 22). Judge McCoy recommends granting the Motion. Neither party timely objected, so the matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no
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. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R (Doc. 26) in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. 2. Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 22) is GRANTED.
3. Defendant’s decision denying benefits is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Motion. See (Doc. 22 at 1). 4. If Plaintiff prevails on remand, Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s
November 14, 2012, standing order (Doc. 1) in Miscellaneous Case No. 6:12-mc-124-Orl-22. 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate all deadlines
or pending motions, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 15, 2021.
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties 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)