Tocco v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: August 15, 2022
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00399
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MARCO TOCCO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:21-cv-399-TPB-SPF

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Sean P. Flynn, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on July 28, 2022. (Doc. 30). Judge Flynn recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part “Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand” (Doc. 26). Specifically, Judge Flynn recommends the case be remanded in part to the Commissioner for her to direct the Appels Council to issue a decision that Plaintiff was disabled as of July 9, 2022. Regarding the contested period of July 18, 2018, through July 8, 2020, Judge Flynn recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision because the administrative law judge’s decision was based on substantial evidence and employed proper legal standards. Neither party filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time to object 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 due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. Consequently,

the Commissioner’s “Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand” (Doc. 26) is granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. The report and recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.

2. The Commissioner’s “Opposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand” (Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 3. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that this case is REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the Appeals Council to issue a partially favorable decision, finding that Medical-Vocational Rule 202.06 directs a finding of “disabled” as of July 9, 2020. 4. For the period from July 18, 2018, through July 8, 2020, the motion is DENIED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED, in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of August, 2022.

wn N 7 ie / ‘| UY Ed | | if | — Phy TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 3