Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security (Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
BRYAN J. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:21-cv-2906-TPB-AAS
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration,
Defendant. /
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Amanda Arnold Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on June 29, 2022. (Doc. 17). Judge Sansone recommends that “Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand” (Doc. 15) be granted in part and the case be remanded with instructions to conduct a rehearing on certain issues. No objections to the report and recommendation were filed, and the time for filing objections has expired. 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); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th
Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982). Upon consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Sansone’s detailed and well-reasoned findings and conclusions. Consequently, the motion for entry of judgment with remand is granted in part, as set forth below.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation (Doc. 17) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. “Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand” (Doc. 15) is GRANTED IN PART.
3. This matter is REMANDED with instructions to conduct a rehearing for the limited purpose of reevaluating whether there are jobs available to Mr. Smith in the national economy, and in doing so addressing and resolving any inconsistencies between the residual functional capacity limitations and the requirements of the jobs identified. 4. The motion is otherwise DENIED. 5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff consistent with this Order, terminate any pending motions or deadlines, and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 29th day of July, 2022.
| / I ¢ 2 A joe! by TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-commissioner-of-social-security-flmd-2022.