Opinion
20-61719-DIMITROULEAS/SW
10-08-2021
MARIA ROGET, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Snow (the “Report”) [DE 33], filed herein on August 31, 2021. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 33] and has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections [DE 34] and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objections [DE 35]. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits on March 15, 2018, alleging disability since February 12, 2018 as a result of fibromyalgia, migraines, back and knee pain, and mental impairments. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Judge Valencia Jarvis on August 21, 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 June 26, 2020. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner.
On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [DE 26]. On June 23, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [DE 27]. On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking that the Court reverse or remand the case for further administrative proceedings. [DE 31]. On August 31, 2021, Magistrate Judge Snow issued her Report, recommending that Plaintiff's Amended Motion be denied and that Defendant's Motion be granted. See [DE 33] at p. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Plaintiff's objections.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff objects to the ALJ's purported error in (1) applying the correct legal standards to Dr. Bauer's opinion and (2) applying the correct legal standards and making findings regarding Plaintiff's left knee impairment, which Plaintiff argues was not supported by substantial evidence. In her Report, Magistrate Judge Snow explained the reasons that the ALJ was not required to highlight and/or incorporate Dr. Bauer's opinion on Plaintiff's ability to respond to interpersonal demands. See [DE 33] at 20-21. Further, she determined, based on the record as a whole, that the ALJ's decision not to include limitations regarding left knee pain in the residual capacity assessment and the hypothetical presented to the VE was supported by substantial record evidence. Id. at 21-22. 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 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 33] is hereby APPROVED;
2. Plaintiff's Objections [DE 34] are hereby OVERRULED;
3. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31] is hereby DENIED;
4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 27] 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.