Opinion
8:22-cv-438-VMC-JBT
12-01-2022
RICHARD MICHAEL MILLER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 21), entered on November 2, 2022, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits be reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration. On November 16, 2022, the Commissioner filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 22). Plaintiff Richard Michael Miller responded to the objection on November 30, 2022. (Doc. # 23).
The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, overrules the objection, reverses the Commissioner's decision, and remands this case.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Toomey's Report and Recommendation as well as the objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Toomey's well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law, including that it is “unclear whether the ALJ meant to limit Plaintiff only to jobs that ‘can be learned from a short demonstration'” and “this error is not harmless because if the ALJ intended to limit Plaintiff to jobs that could be performed only with a short demonstration, which is consistent with SVP code 1, there would be no jobs available nationally that Plaintiff could perform.” (Doc. # 21 at 78). The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 21) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
(2) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), REVERSING the Commissioner's decision and REMANDING with instructions to the Commissioner to: (a) clarify the RFC assessment in accordance with this Order, including stating clearly whether Plaintiff is limited to jobs with an SVP of 1 or an SVP of 2, defining those terms in accordance with the DOT, and explaining why; (b) further reconsider Plaintiff's RFC, if appropriate; and (c) conduct any further proceedings deemed appropriate.
(3) The Clerk is further directed to CLOSE the case.
(4) If Plaintiff ultimately prevails in this case upon remand to the Social Security Administration, any motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2) must be filed within sixty days of the date on the agency's letter stating the amount of past due benefits. This Order does not extend the time limits for filing a motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
DONE and ORDERED.