From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilbride v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division
Jan 23, 2008
CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00247-MP-WCS (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00247-MP-WCS.

January 23, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on Doc. 20, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's applications for supplemental security income benefits filed under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Friday, October 5, 2007. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has been made. In this instance, however, no objections were made.

Although the Plaintiff was initially found to be entitled to supplemental security income benefits, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") later determined that Plaintiff's disability no longer met Listing 112.11, and that he was therefore no longer disabled. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards have been applied. Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by finding that his grandmother waived his statutory right to counsel at the hearing, and by failing to obtain a current psychiatric evaluation from the University of Florida Shands Teaching Hospital.

The Magistrate finds that Plaintiff has shown that his statutory right to counsel was not waived, but because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any evidentiary gaps causing unfairness or clear prejudice, remand is not necessary. The Court agrees with the Magistrate that Plaintiff has not shown any prejudice from the lack of counsel. The record as a whole is complete, and contains no evidentiary gaps. Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that it should be adopted. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 20, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order;
2. The decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gilbride v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division
Jan 23, 2008
CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00247-MP-WCS (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2008)
Case details for

Gilbride v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MAE GILBRIDE, on behalf of GEORGE J. GILBRIDE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division

Date published: Jan 23, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00247-MP-WCS (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2008)