LEACH
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 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment for the defendant and affirming the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits.
Plaintiff sought review of the denial of disability benefits by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the ca…
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 Social Security Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
When reviewing administrative decisions by Defendant, courts “must affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F. 2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
CASE NO. 22-80315-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the well-reasoned Report and agrees with the findings and conclusions contained therein: the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the Appeals Council did not err in declining to review the ALJ's decision [ECF No. 33]. The Report carefully recounts the substantial record evidence developed before the ALJ; examines the ALJ's analysis of the five-step disability analysis as applied to the record evidence, see 20 C.F.R. § 1520; correctly concludes that the ALJ considered Plaintiff's impairments as a whole and followed the instructions in a previous remand order; evaluates Plaintiff's generalized and citation-less challenges to the ALJ's decision; and properly concludes that the Appeals Council did not err under the circumstances in declining to review the ALJ's decision [ECF No. 33].
Plaintiff's generalized objections do not reveal any error in the Report. As noted, a party seeking to lodge an objection to a Report must “specifically identify” the objected-to findings or recommendations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring an objecting party to “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations); Marsden v. Moore, 847 F. 2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (directing district courts not to consider "[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections"); United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that "a party that wishes to preserve its objection must . pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with"). Plaintiff has not done so here—instead lodging conclusory and general challenges to the ALJ's conclusions and to the Appeals Council's decision to deny review [ECF No. 34 pp. 1–5]. The Court therefore need not conduct a de novo review of the Report except as to legal conclusions. Having done so, the Court sees no error, clear or otherwise, in the Report's findings or conclusions. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to deny Plaintiff's
CASE NO. 22-80315-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
application for benefits, and the Appeals Council did not err in declining to review the ALJ's decision or in declining to consider any evidence.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED. a. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] is DENIED. b. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address listed below.
3. Final judgment will be entered separately pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 20th day of March 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Patrick J.P. Leach 6676 Country Winds Cove Lake Worth, FL 33463
PRO SE
[fn 1]: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment contains Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion [see ECF No. 21].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971)
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Marsden v. Louie Moore, 847 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1988)