MCDONALD ROBINSON

v.

SAUL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Snow (the “Report”) [DE 27], filed herein on January 26, 2021. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 27] and has carefully considered Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 28] and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 29]. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits on March 14, 2017, alleging disability as a result of back pain, epilepsy, depression and other impairments. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James Cole Cartledge on April 29, 2019. The ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on January 31, 2020.

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner.

On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking that the Court reverse and remand this matter to the Commissioner for an award of benefits or, in the alternative, a remand for further consideration and analysis. [DE 21].

On November 25, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [DE 22].

On January 26, 2021, Magistrate Judge Snow issued her Report, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and that

Defendant’s Motion be granted. See [DE 27].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Plaintiff’s objections.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff objects to the Report’s purported errors of (1) recommending that the Court uphold the ALJ decision which Plaintiff contends did not properly evaluate Plaintiff’s spinal disorders pursuant to the requirements set forth under Listing 1.04 and did not properly assess treating physician opinion evidence of record and (2) supporting the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment which Plaintiff argues was not based on substantial evidence. In her Report, Magistrate Judge Snow explained the reasoning of the ALJ’s stated basis for rejecting Plaintiff’s claim regarding his disc disease meeting or medically equaling the relevant

requirements and the ALJ’s weighing of the physician opinion evidence. Further, she determined that the ALJ’s decisions were properly supported by substantial record evidence. Upon review of the record, the Court agrees with the reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. A court should affirm an ALJ’s decision “if the decision was supported by substantial evidence . . . defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. 3d 1276, 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Snow that Plaintiff has failed to establish that the ALJ committed any error, and that substantial evidence is present to support the ALJ’s conclusions.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 27] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 28] are hereby OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 21] is hereby DENIED; 4. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 22] is hereby GRANTED; 5. The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED; and 6. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2021.

a ? ; % (7 a “4 if { FO etrsnnnnc zd a3 v Py j ‘4 ta ase [...]

VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Snow Counsel of record