Rainey v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 8:23-cv-00931
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MELODY RAINEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-931-VMC-SPF

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. _______________________________/

ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20), entered on August 1, 2024, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits be affirmed. On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 21). The Commissioner did not file a response to the objection. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, overrules the objection, and affirms the Commissioner’s decision. Discussion 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 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, 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

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). Ms. Rainey’s objection presents two arguments. First,

the ALJ failed to “properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence” by “rejecting the limitations described . . . by treating physician Dr. Roetzheim and those from the Agency’s own examining physician, Dr. Syed.” (Doc. # 21 at 1). Second, the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Ms. Rainey’s testimony regarding her pain. (Id. at 6-7). The Court is unpersuaded by these arguments. Rather, the Court agrees with Judge Flynn’s analysis rejecting these arguments. First, “[t]he ALJ reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records . . . and found the state agency physicians’ administrative findings more persuasive in formulating

Plaintiff’s RFC for light work with limitations.” (Doc. # 20 at 17). Second, “substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s allegations of subjective pain.” (Id. at 21). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s Report and Recommendation as well as the objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Flynn’s well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis

for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of August, 2024.

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE