Summary
remanding case for apparent conflict between a restriction to "simple instructions" and jobs that require "detail but uninvolved instructions"
Summary of this case from Moultry v. SaulOpinion
Case No. 18-cv-60210-BLOOM/Valle
01-29-2020
MICHELLE PORTER, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michelle Porter's ("Plaintiff") Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [44] ("Plaintiff's Motion"), and Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's ("Defendant") Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [47] ("Defendant's Motion"). In this suit, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, which denied Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. See ECF No. [1]. This matter was referred to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, United States Magistrate Judge, consistent with Administrative Order 2014-64, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1. ECF Nos. [30] & [31].
On January 13, 2020, Judge Valle issued a Report and Recommendations ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be granted and that Defendant's Motion be denied, and that this case be remanded for further proceedings. ECF No. [70]. The R&R further advised the parties that objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the R&R. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a report and recommendations], any party may serve and file written objections . . . as provided by rules of court."). To date, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed objections to the R&R, nor have they sought additional time in which to do so. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Upon careful review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Valle's R&R to be well-reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R, and concludes that Plaintiff's Motion should be granted, and Defendant's Motion should be denied for the reasons set forth therein.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Valle's Report and Recommendations, ECF No. [70], is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [44], is GRANTED.
3. Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [47], is DENIED.
4. This case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the findings contained in the R&R.
5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 29, 2020.
/s/ _________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: The Honorable Alicia O. Valle Counsel of Record