United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
B.DALTON JR. United States District Judge
cause is before the Court on the following matters: (1) U.S.
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 24); and (2) Plaintiff's Response to
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25).
accordance with 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), Omayra Perez
Erazo (“Erazo”) timely initiated
this action against the Commissioner of Social Security
judicial review of a final unfavorable determination
(“Decision”) on her claim for
payment of Social Security Disability and Supplemental
Security Income benefits
(“Claim”). (Doc. 1, ¶ 1;
see Doc. 17-3, pp. 58-78 (providing copy of
Decision); see also Doc. 17-2, pp. 2-5 (rejecting
appeal); Doc. 17-5, pp. 5-11 (documenting initial claim).)
Alleging that the Decision “is not supported by
substantial evidence and applies an erroneous standard of
law, ” Erazo requests that the Court set the Decision
aside. (See Doc. 1, ¶ 8.) Seeking affirmance of
the Decision, the Commissioner filed an Answer and the
transcript of the administrative proceedings. (Docs. 15, 17.)
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule
6.01(c)(21), the matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge
Thomas B. Smith (“Judge Smith”),
who entered a Scheduling Order (Doc. 18). See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(4). The pa rties then filed a Joint Memorandum (Doc.
23), and Judge Smith issued a “Report and
(“Report”), which recommends
that the Court affirm the Decision pursuant to sentence four
of § 405(g). (See Doc. 24.) Erazo then filed a
“Response, ” w h i c h the Court
construes as timely objections to the Report under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 6.02(a).
(See Doc. 25.) The Commissioner did not respond to
Erazo's objections, and the deadline to do so has passed.
See Local Rule 6.02(a) (requiring that any written
response to objections be filed within fourteen days).
14 days after being served” with a Report and
Recommendation, an objecting party may file “specific
written objections” to the “proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see Heath
v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). Upon de
novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which timely and proper objection is made, the
“district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition, receive further evidence, or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also Olsen v. Astrue, 858 F.Supp.2d
1306, 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
Social Security regulations require that the Commissioner:
(1) develop the claimant's medical history for the 12
months preceding the month of application (20 C.F.R. §
404.1512(b)(1)(ii)); (2) “review all of the evidence
relevant” to a disability claim (id. §
404.953(a)); and (3) issue “a written decision that
gives the findings of fact and the reasons for the
decision” (id. §
404.1520b). In reviewing the Commissioner's
written decision, courts are required to determine whether it
is “supported by substantial evidence and based on
proper legal standards.” Ellison v. Barnhart,
355 F.3d 1272, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003). Such review “is
demarcated by a deferential reconsideration of the findings
of fact and an exacting examination of the conclusions of law
. ” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529
(11th Cir. 1990).
Response, Erazo objects only to Judge Smith's rejection
of her argument that the Decision is flawed because the ALJ
failed to obtain all of her medical records. (See
Doc. 25, pp. 3-4.) Judge Smith fully addressed this argument
in the Report and his analysis finds proper support in the
record evidence. (See Doc. 24, pp. 8-10; see
also Doc. 17-2, pp. 88-90, 122-23; Doc. 17-7, pp. 78-81;
Docs. 17-8, 17-9, 17-10.) Further, after an independent de
novo review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees
entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in
Judge Smith's Report. Thus, the Court finds that the
Erazo's objection is due to be overruled and the Report
is due to be accepted and adopted.
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Omayra Perez Erazo's Response to Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 25) is OVERRULED.
2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 24) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and