Opinion
21-22146-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres
09-14-2022
JAVIER SIERRA, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres's Report of Magistrate Judge (“Report”) [ECF No. 27], entered on September 2, 2022. On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff, Javier Sierra, filed this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that denied Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits [ECF No. 1]. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Torres pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c) for all proceedings in the case [ECF No. 3].
The Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report recommending that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] be granted; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 24] be denied; and (3) the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (See Report 24). The Magistrate Judge found that (1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in failing to resolve a conflict between Defendant's vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles data regarding the position of ironer, domestic worker; and (2) the ALJ's residual functional capacity finding is not flawed because of the purported failure to account for all of Plaintiff's impairments; but (3) the Appeals Council erred by denying review and failing to remand the ALJ's decision in light of new and material evidence showing that the step five-determination was not supported by substantial evidence. (See id. 3-4). The Report also advised the parties that they had 10 days to file objections. (See id. 24); see also S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). To date, neither party has filed objections.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment (citations omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review when objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[ judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate[ judge]'s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (alteration added; citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc)).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In the light of that review, the undersigned agrees with the analysis and recommendations stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 27] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24] is DENIED. Summary judgment will be entered by separate order.
The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED
Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres counsel of record