recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”
How later courts described this case
- recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DARLENE A. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:21-cv-1221-MMH-MCR
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
O R D E R
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C.
Richardson’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15; Report), entered on
February 3, 2023. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that the
Commissioner=s decision be reversed and remanded. See Report at 2, 17. No
objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
The Court “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).
Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court
reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection
was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See
id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s]
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant
amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or
not.”).
Upon independent review of the Magistrate Judge=s Report, the Court will
accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the
Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and
the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1, n.1.
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ADOPTED as
the opinion of the Court.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment, pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), REVERSING the Commissioner=s
decision and REMANDING with instructions to the ALJ to conduct the
five-step sequential evaluation process in light of all the evidence and
conduct any further proceedings deemed appropriate.
3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close the file.
4. If Plaintiff ultimately prevails in this case upon remand to the
Social Security Administration, any motion for attorney’s fees under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2) must be filed within fourteen
(14) days from plaintiff’s counsel’s receipt of any “close-out” letter. The
motion must include the agency letter stating the amount of past-due
benefits withheld, include any applicable contingency fee agreement, and
establish the fee is reasonable for the services rendered. This Order does not
3
extend the time limits for filing a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 23rd day of
February, 2023.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record