Opinion
Case No. 2:05-cv-203-FtM-33SPC.
March 2, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33) filed on February 13, 2006, recommending that: (1) Scott's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #27) be denied; and (2) Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #28) be granted. Scott has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #34).
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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). Here, Scott has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Scott argues that: (1) the Report and Recommendation did not account for the undisputed record evidence of Scott's disability; (2) it was error for the Report and Recommendation to adopt Hartford's allegedly factually incorrect medical conclusions; and (3) the Report and Recommendation misapplied the findings in Hufford v. Harris Corp., 322 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2004). Reviewing these objections alongside the Report and Recommendation, the Court is unconvinced that the above noted objections warrant rejection of the Report and Recommendation.
For those issues that have not been specifically objected to, 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 recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law and those matters to which objections were filed, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. The Court therefore accepts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
2. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #28) is GRANTED.
3. Scott's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #27) is DENIED.
4. The Clerk shall enter judgement accordingly and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED.