Junttila v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-80944-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

JOHAN JUNTTILA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 20]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 20], filed on April 6, 2023. The Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment (the “Motion”), filed by the Commissioner on April 6, 2023, moves the Court to reverse and remand its decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so the Administrative Law Judge may further develop the claimant’s record and offer the claimant an opportunity for a new hearing [ECF No. 19]. The Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sought [ECF No. 19 p. 4]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 2]. Judge Reinhart issued the Report, recommending that the Motion be granted and that the Court reverse the Commissioners’ decision and remand this matter [ECF No. 20 p. 1]. Objections to the Report were due on April 20, 2023 [ECF No. 20 p. 2]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 20 p. 2]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 19] should be GRANTED and this matter REMANDED to the Commissioner [ECF No. 20 p. 1]. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED.

2. Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause to Defendant [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED. 3. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED. 4. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for the purposes specified in this Order. Upon remand, the Appeals Council shall instruct the Administrative Law Judge to further develop the claimant’s record and to offer the claimant the opportunity for a new hearing. In addition, the Administrative Law Judge shall be instructed to obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to resolve the apparent conflict between the occupational evidence provided by the vocational expert and information CASE NO. 22-80944-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT); clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the claimant’s occupational base; and to issue a new decision. 5. The Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 25th day of April 2023.

AILEEN Lek UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge Reinhart